AKSHAY TIKOO Vs. MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner aggrieved with Communication/Order No. SMVDU/Adm/08/4306 dated 23.12.2008 of Registrar, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Katra, intimating petitioner that he has been discharged from his services as Associate Professor of the University with effect from 23.12.2008 on the ground of "very poor" performance during his probation period assessed by Appraisal Committee, has come up with writ petition on hand on the grounds set out in the petition. At the outset of his advancing arguments, Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned counsel appearing for Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (hereinafter, for short, "SMVDU") raises the issue as regards maintainability of writ petition on the premise that SMVDU is not a 'State' within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The said issue, with consent of learned counsel for parties, has been treated as a Preliminary Issue and this judgment is confined to the said issue only.

(2.) Mr. Basotra states that as per Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University Act of 1999 (hereinafter, for short, "SMVDU Act of 1999"), enacted by the J&K State Legislature, SMVDU is a private University incorporated to offer scientific and technical education of highest standards as also to utilize the surplus finance of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (hereinafter for short "SMVDSB"). He further states that SMVDSB is the supreme authority that governs SMVDU and that since SMVDSB has power to review acts of Executive Council as well as Academic Council of SMVDU, the University is under full and effective control of SMVDSB, in which the State of J&K or Government of India has no control or power of superintendence over SMVDU nor the SMVDU receives any financial assistance directly or indirectly from State of J&K or Government of India. Mr. Basotra also states that Division Bench of this Court has declared and held SMVDSB as not an instrumentality of the state within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, therefore, SMVDU does not fall within term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus SMVDU, according to Mr. Basotra , is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, accordingly, concludes that writ petition on hand is liable to be rejected in limine on this ground alone.

(3.) Mr. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, on the other hand, vehemently contradicts the stand taken by Mr. Basotra. He argues that SMVDU has been imparting education and selecting teaching as well as administrative staff. These activities, therefore, can well be said to be akin to public duties or State functions, and if there is any violation of constitutional or statutory rights or obligations of the Citizens, the aggrieved person has the right to seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He thus argues that the preliminary issue raised by respondents is not sustainable. In support of his argument, he refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled as Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, 2005 4 SCC 649.