Imparting of Higher Education amounts to “discharge of public functions”; Hence Writ Petition against Private Deemed University maintainable; SC [Read Judgment]

In identifying the “classes of case in which judicial review is available”, the courts place considerable importance on the source of legal authority exercised by the defendant public authority. Secondly and additionally, where the “source of power” approach does not yield a clear or satisfactory outcome, the court may consider the characteristics of the function being performed.”Echoing the views taken in English decisions that judicial review based solely on the test of ‘source of power, whether statutory or prerogative’ is too restrictive, and following the dicta laid down in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 691 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649, the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered today, favored adopting the complementary test of examining the characteristics of the function being performed in case application of the former test did not yield a satisfactory outcome. Opining that the term “authority” used in Article 226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term in Article 12, the Supreme Court today held that an aided educational institution like government institutions discharge public function by way of imparting education to students and therefore they are amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed (with the appellant appearing in person) against the judgment and order dated 04.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 932 of 2013 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the respondent University against the order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No.12676 of 2012 and, in consequence, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein as being not maintainable.The services of the appellant, Dr. Janet Jeyapaul, who was a faculty member in S.R.M. University-the 1st respondent which is a deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short “the UGC Act”), was terminated by the 1st respondent-University for the alleged failure to take classes of the students of B.Sc. Third Year degree course and M.Sc. First Year degree course. Though the appellant submitted her replies denying the allegations and claiming that she took classes for both the courses, the same was not accepted by SRM University which served a notice dated 04.04.2012 on the appellant mentioning therein that the same shall be treated as one month’s notice and she would be relieved from the services w.e.f. 04.05.2012.Challenging the actions of the 1st respondent, the appellant filed a writ petition before the single judge of the Madras High Court.By order dated 08.04.2013, the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination notice and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant into service.Against the said order of the Single Judge, the 1st respondent-University filed Writ Appeal before a Division Bench the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 04.07.2013, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal. It was held that the writ petition filed by the appellant against respondent No.1 was not maintainable as according to the Division Bench, the 1st respondent is neither a State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence it cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality and correctness of the dismissal order. The Division Bench, therefore, did not examine the merits of the case made out by the appellant successfully before the Single Judge. The Division Bench, however, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the Tribunal for ventilating of her grievance on merits.Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred appeal by way of special leave to the Supreme Court.Since the appeal involved a legal issue and the appellant had no legal assistance, the Court requested senior counsel Mr. Harish Salve, who was present in Court, to assist the Court to enable it to properly appreciate and decide the issues arising in the case.According to Mr. Salve, while deciding the question as to whether the writ lies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against any person, juristic body, organization, authority etc., the test is to examine in the first instance the object and purpose for which such body/authority/organization is formed so also the activity which it undertakes to fulfill the said object/purpose.Referring to the english decisions in Breen vs. A.E.U. (1971) 2 QB 175, R. vs. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin Plc and another (Norton Opax Plc and another intervening) (1987) 1 All ER 564, E.S. Evans vs. Charles E.Newton 382 US 296 (1966) and of this Court in Andi Mukta...

Imparting of Higher Education amounts to “discharge of public functions”; Hence Writ Petition against Private Deemed University maintainable; SC [Read Judgment]

Ajith.S

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ajith.S

Imparting of Higher Education amounts to “discharge of public functions”; Hence Writ Petition against Private Deemed University maintainable; SC [Read Judgment]

Ajith.S

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ajith.S

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers