SUMANBEN H PANDYA Vs. DHANSURA PRADESH EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the sCounsel for the parties on the point in issue, viz., the validity of Sec. 14(3) of the Gujarat Affiliated College Services Tribunals Act, 1982. Section 14 deals with the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of college employees. It, inter alia, provides for an enquiry to be held and opportunity of hearing being granted. It further stipulates that any action, which is proposed to be taken, should be approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the relevant University. Sub-sec. (3) thereof states that if the Vice-Chancellor fails to communicate either approval or disapproval within the period of forty-five days, then the proposed action shall be deemed to have been approved by the Chancellor.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this provision is ultra vires Airs. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the said provision confers unbridled power to the Vice-Chancellor to exercise the power or not to exercise the power and the said provision is arbitrary.

(3.) We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is a matter of policy as to what power should be entrusted on the Vice-Chancellor. A Court would not, normally, interfere in this behalf. It will be seen that the approval of the Vice-Chancellor is to be obtained only after an enquiry has been held. Recognising that there may be administrative delays and it may not be possible for the Vice-Chancellor to pass an order within the stipulated time of 45 days, the Legislature has thought fit to provide that not passing of an order would amount to automatic grant of approval. The Legislature could well, as a matter of policy, provide that not passing of an order would amount to the rejection of the approval. That the Legislature has preferred one option to the other, is best left to the wisdom of the Legislature and we do not see how the provisions of Arts. 14 and 21 would come into play.