COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, BHARTIYA SANSKRIT MAHAVIDYALAYA POST Vs. MEERUT UNIVERSITY, MEERUT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 claims to be the Committee of Management of Bhartiya Sanskrit Mahavidyalay Post Graduate College, Roorkee and petitioner no. 2 to be its Secretary. Both the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming that the Administrator appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University, Meerut should be required to hand over the charge of the College to the Committee.

(2.) It appear that the Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University, Meerut, vide its order dated 12th Dec., 1983 superseded the Managing Committee and appointed an administrator to run the affairs of the Institution on the ground hat the Managing Committee had made certain defaults. The Vice-Chancellor Purported to exercise the said powers under the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) (a) (4) and (6) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 subsequently, as the term of the superseded Managing Committee expired, elections were held on 24-6-1984 and a Managing Committee was constituted. Thereafter, the new Managing Committee moved the Vice-Chancellor on 26th June, 1984 praying that 'the administrator may be removed and the charge of the Institution may be handed over to the newly elected Committee of Management. According to the petitioners, the Vice-Chancellor has not moved in the matter since then and the administrator appointed by him is continuing to run the affairs of the Institution, in derogation of petitioners' rights.

(3.) We have heard Sri A.K. Goyal, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri A.K. Yog and P.K. Jain learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is not disputed that the new Managing Committee of the Institution was elected on 24th of June, 1984 the validity of the constitution of the said committee has not been disputed by the respondents. The Administrator in this case was appointed because of certain lapses on the part of the old Managing Committee which was superseded by the Vice-Chancellor vide its order dated 12th Dec., 1984. It is not stated that the defaults committed by the superseded Managing Committee still persists and that continuance of the Administrator is necessary for removing those defaults. There is no reason to think that the new Managing Committee which normally is entitled to manage the affairs of the Institution will not run the Institution properly and in accordance with the various statutory provisions. In the circumstances, we feel that there is no justification to continuing the Administrator appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.