RAJENDRA SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard this matter extensively but we would say at the very outset itself that the main contentions pressed by the State Counsel, Shri J. S. L. Sinha, to support State's action in these cases, heard analogously, has not appealed to us in the least.

(2.) WE do not read anything in the common order (Annexure P-5) to take the view that the action of the State can be deemed as an "act of State" or that such an action could be taken in the derogation of the statutory provisions occupying the field. Shri Sinha has laid strong emphasis on the right of the State to pre-empt any action that could be taken by the statutory "screening Committee" constituted under the relevant rules namely. Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment rules, 1967, for short, the Rules. We are indeed compelled to repel Shri Sinha's ingenious contention by stating only the elementary principle of jurisprudence that there can be no "act of State" against citizens. (See, Memon Haji Ismail, AIR 1958 SC 1383, Promod Chandra, AIR 1962 SC 1288, Vora Fiddali, AIR 1964 SC 1043, Madhav rao Scindia, AIR 1971 SC 530 ). Indeed, the law that "taking over" of private colleges within the country could not be "act of State" was rather given effect to by the State government by enacting the said Rules, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT is not disputed that factually and actually the popularly called Pohari college (Laxmi Saraswati, Gopal, Krishna Mahavidyalaya, Pohari) was non-grantee college and that it came to be taken over by the State on and from 1-2-1987, which date was changed to 15-2-1987 to make it notionally the take-over date. However, before that, by Annexure P-5. on 20-1-1987. State arrogated to itself the function which had to be exercised by the "screening Committee" envisaged under the Rules aforesaid. Indeed, without disclosing in the said order any reason or rationale for its action services of several teachers and others already in employment of the College were dealt with arbitrarily, throwing them on the street as if the action was being taken in a foreign territory. No wonder, therefore, justification for this pure and simple executive act is sought in the doctrine of "act of State". For this misadventure, we would not permit the misconceived plea to succeed in this Court.