K J PILLAI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the fourth respondent-Institute of Management claims to be a prestigious organisation to promote education maintaining high standards, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents produced in the cases, the court finds that the impugned orders made by the fourth respondents Institute exhibit very low standard of law. W.P. No.7570/93 is filed by one Dr. K.J. Pillai against the order of the Chairman dated 1-6-1993 of Siva Sivani Educational Society which is arrayed as Respondent No.3 in the writ petition terminating his services as the Director of the fourth respondent-Institute of Management. The petitioner in W.P. No. 7437/93 Smt. S. Sarala Kumari is the wife of Dr. K. J. Pillai and she has questioned the validity of the order made by the Chairman of the third respondent-society dated 17-5-1993 keeping her under suspension pending an enquiry.

(2.) Few undisputed facts which are necessary to be noted for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions are: The petitioners and certain others, in the year 1978 formed a society and registered the same under the provisions of the Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli and established an Institute called Indian Institute of Administrative Sciences to teach the students leading to the Master degree in Business Administration, When the said Institute was established in the year 1978, it had no recognition or affiliation either by the public authorities or the Universities. The third respondent society took over the management of the said Institute of Administrative Sciences on 17-11-1991 under a registered agreement. Thereaf terwards even the name of the Institute was changed as Siva Sivani Institute of Management. Thereafterwards the respondents 3 and 4 sought recognition from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), a statutory authority created under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the recognition was granted to the fourth respondent Institute by the AICTE on 9-12-1992. Dr. K.J. Pillai was the Director of the Indian Institute of Administrative Sciences and his wife Smt. Sarala Kumari was the Research Associate of the same Institute. Even after taking over of the management of the Indian Institute of Administrative Sciences by the third respondent-society, they were again appointed and continued in their respective posts. When the matter stood thus, the Chairman of the third respondent-society passed orders on 17-5-1993 suspending both Dr. K.J. Pillai and his wife Smt. S. Sarala Kumari pending the enquiry into certain alleged misconduct committed by them. Dr. K.J. Pillai had filed W.P. No. 7438 of 1993 questioning the validity of the suspension order and the said writ petition is already disposed off in view of the final order of termination dated 1-6-1993.

(3.) The learned counsel for the parties were heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners attacking the validity of the order dated 1-6-1993 terminating the services of Dr. K.J. Pillai as Director of the Institute submitted that the impugned order dated 1-6-1993 passed by the Chairman of the third respondent society is totally unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the third respondent has no power to pass the impugned order and only the governing body of the fourth respondent Institute could terminate the services of the Director and therefore the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel also contended that the impugned order was actuated by malice in fact. She also further contended th0at the impugned order is made in violation of Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. Assailing the order of the Chairman of the third respondent society dated 17-5-1993 keeping Smt. Sarala Kumari under suspension pending enquiry, the learned counsel submitted that the action smacks of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is made in utter violation of principles of natural justice. She submitted that though more than 16 months are elapsed from the date of impugned order, the respondents 3 and 4 have not reviewed the suspension order and they are treating the suspension order as the one terminating the services of Smt. S. Sarala Kumari.