DEO PRIYESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19 November 2013. The appellants were petitioners in one of a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. By their petition, the appellants sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint them on the post of Part Time Instructors (Anudheshak) in the subjects of Arts, Education and Physical Education. They were aggrieved by a communication dated 31 May 2013 issued by the Additional Project Director to the District Basic Education Officer. All the appellants claimed appointment on the basis of the degree of Bachelor of Arts obtained from the Chandra Mohan Jha (C.M.J.) University, Modrina Mansion, Laitumkhrah, Shillong, Meghalaya - the first seven appellants in Fine Arts and the remaining in Physical Education. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned in these proceedings, has dismissed the petition. The C.M.J. University, Meghalaya was established under the C.M.J. University Act, 2009, a State Act. Under Section 13(1) of the Act, the Governor of Meghalaya is the Visitor of the University. Under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act, the Visitor is empowered to issue directions which would be binding on the University. Section 13(3)(b) of the Act reads as follows:

(2.) On 30 April 2013, a communication was addressed by the Secretariat of the Governor to the Chairperson of the C.M.J. Foundation, pointing out several irregularities, inter alia, in regard to the grant of illegal admissions. In the circumstances, the following directives were issued under Section 13(3)(b) of the Act by the Visitor:

(3.) Subsequently, by a communication dated 24 May 2013, the Governor responded to a reply received from the University and observed that the University was running several off campus centers outside Meghalaya, which was contrary to the U.G.C. (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2005 5 SCC 420. Moreover, it was noted that contrary to law the University was offering distance education programmes outside the boundaries of Meghalaya. The communication referred to several instances of gross irregularities and unethical practices on the part of the University which had eroded the credibility and foundation of the University to function and to achieve its goal of disseminating higher education. The communication notes that the violation amounts to mismanagement, maladministration and the failure of accomplishment of the objectives of the University within the meaning of Section 48 of the Act so as to warrant the dissolution of the University. In the circumstances, the following directives were issued under Section 13(3)(b):