COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHIVHARSH KISHAN POST GRADUATE COLLEGE BASTI, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT Vs. GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY, GORAKHPUR THROUGH THE VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 12th Nov., 1991, passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur in exercise of his power under Sec. 35(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act. By the said order the Vice-Chancellor had stayed the operation of the suspension order passed by the Committee of Management against Sri Pyarey Lal Shukla, who was Principal of the College.

(2.) The facts in nut-shell are that Sri Pyarey Lal Shukla, respondent No.5 was the principal of the institution. The Committee of Management received certain complaints against him and as such by an order dated 11th Aug., 1991 suspended respondent No.5 on 12th Aug., 1991, Sri Pyarey Lal Shukla, respondent No.5 filed a representation before the Vice-Chancellor and in exercise of his power under Sec. 35(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, the Vice-Chancellor set aside the order of suspension dated 11th Aug., 1991, but permitted the Committee of Management to continue with the enquiry against respondent No.5. The said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 15th Aug., 1991 was challenged by the Committee of Management in Civil Misc. Writ No.23587 of 1991 on the ground that the order was bad in law as no opportunity had been afforded to the Committee of Management by the Vice-Chancellor before passing the impugned order. The writ petition was finally decided on 19th Sept., 1991 and this Court held that the order of the Vice-Chancellor would be deemed to be an interim order and that he shall pass final order after providing full opportunity to the Committee of Management. Against the said order Special Appeal No.84 of 1991 was filed and the Division Bench of this Court by its Judgment dated 11th Nov., 1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19th Sept., 1991 and it also set aside the order of the Vice- Chancellor dated 15th Aug., 1991 but the Court left it to the Vice-Chancellor to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The Appellate Court took the view that by the order dated 15th Aug., 1991 the Vice-Chancellor had set aside the order of suspension and not merely stayed it and as such the same was in breach of the principles of natural justice as the Committee of management was not heard. After the decision of this Court, the Vice-Chancellor passed a fresh order on 12th Nov., 1991 by means of which he stayed the operation of the order of suspension passed against the principal and fixed 15th Dec., 1991 for hearing the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Dr. R.G. Padia, counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 12th Nov., 1991 has been passed with the sole object to circumvent the Judgment of this Court dated 11th Nov., 1991 and that it is bad in law as the Committee of Management was not heard before the order suspending respondent No.5 was stayed by the Vice-Chancellor. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is wholly mis-conceived and is untenable in law. In exercise of powers under Sec. 35(4) of the U.P. State Universities Act, it is not mandatory for the Vice-Chancellor to hear the Committee of Management before passing an exparte order staying the operation of the order of the Committee of Management, pending appeal before him. He cannot set aside the order of suspension without hearing the Committee of Management, but he is not under legal obligation to hear the Committee of Management before passing an ex parte interim order. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of Budha Vidyapeeth Degree College Naugarh, Basti and Anr. Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur and another, 1987 AWC 634 has held that the interim order passed by the Vice-Chancellor under Sec. 35(4) of the Act is not vitiated, if the Committee of Management is not heard.