M.P.DWIVEDI Vs. Y.S.PARMAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases, the main question, which is to be decided is whether the Himachal Pradesh University and the Universities constituted under the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 are governed by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The answer to the question will depend upon two questions, (1) whether the said Universities will fall within the scope of Section 15(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and (2) whether those Universities are owned or controlled by the State Government.

(2.) Insofar as the first question is concerned, there is a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jeet Ram Thakur v. Himachal Pradesh University and others, 1988 (2) Sim.L.C. 51. In that case, there was no dispute that the University was an autonomous body and it was neither controlled nor owned by the Government. On the basis of that concession, the Division Bench proceeded to consider the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and held that the Universities in order to be brought within the ambit of the Administrative Tribunals Act should have been notified by the Central Government under Section 14(2) of the Act. In other words, the decision of the Bench was that the Universities will fall within the expression local or other authorities within the territory of India as found in Section 14(2) of the Act and Section 15(2) would apply only to local or other authorities and corporations or Societies controlled or owned by the State Government. The Division Bench expressed the opinion that the University not being owned or controlled by the State Government would fall within Section 14 of the Act and a notification is necessary by the Central Government in order to make the Act applicable to the University.

(3.) The decision of the Division Bench was referred to and relied upon before a Full Bench in Vinod Kumar v. H.R.T.C. and others, 1995(2) Sim.L.C. 24. The Full Bench observed as follows: "Since the question whether the H.P. University is owned or controlled by the State Government was not in issue in that judgment, we are of the view that the same will require consideration in some suitable case. Clearly, therefore, the decision does not support the submission of the learned Counsel and for that reason is rejected."