Orissa High Court Upholds The Validity Of Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020

The Orissa High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020 ("the OUA Act"), held that in the absence of legislation by the central government under Entry 25 List III, the subordinate legislation under Entry 66 List I will have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25 of the seventh schedule. A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice A.K. Mohapatra was hearing a batch of writ petitions which challenged the validity of the OUA Act, 2020 under several grounds. The Amendment Act amended multiple provisions of the Odisha Universities Act, 1989. Contentions: It was contended, on behalf of the Petitioners that the OUA Act violates Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission, apart from being arbitrary and without application of mind. The OUA Act to the extent it has repealed the Ravenshaw University Act, 2005 was challenged as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Out of many arguments made by the State of Odisha, it was vehemently contended that Entry 66 in List I is a specific entry having a very limited scope. It deals with co-ordination and determination of the standards in institutions of higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions. The words 'co-ordination' and 'determination of standards' would mean laying down standards. When it comes to prescribing minimum standards for such higher educational institutions, exclusive domain is given to the Union. All other facets of education, including regulation and governance of education are within the legislative competence of the State Government under Entry 25 List III. Therefore, the Amendment cannot be struck down for contradiction with a central subordinate legislation, especially in the absence of any central statute under Entry 25 List III. Judgment: The Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, (2013) 8 SCC 633, which held that under Entry 25 of List III, the State is entitled to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff of the universities and colleges within the State and the same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any central legislation. The Court further observed: "The Court's attention was drawn to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which empowers the 'appropriate legislature' to regulate the 'recruitment' and 'conditions of service' of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the state or the Union as the case may be. The method of selection and appointment is a sub-set of 'recruitment' and the State legislature can enact a law to regulate it." Refuting the apprehension of the Petitioners that the Odisha Public Service Commission ("OPSC") may not be effective in the task of recruitment of teachers, the Court held that it cannot be accepted and acted upon as it is not based on any actual empirical data. It further held: "Whenever there are changes to the methods of recruitment, some apprehension by those wanting the continuation of the status quo is but natural. But then the changes are intended to improve the system and the test of their working would have to be made on actual case to case basis. At this stage, it is not possible for the Court, on the basis of the material placed before it, to come to a definite conclusion that these changes will not serve the purpose of improving the system of recruitment of teaching staff." While dismissing the petition, it held that mere recantation of the expression 'manifest arbitrariness' to assail the validity of the OUA Act will not satisfy the high threshold that the said expression requires. The arbitrariness must be 'demonstrable' and the Petitioners failed to persuade the Court about the 'manifest arbitrariness' of the impugned provisions of the OUA Act. Lastly, the Court cited Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353, to reiterate the threshold laid down in that decision. It said that the impugned changes/provisions should have a "heavy and devastating effect" to be invalidated. However, the aforesaid threshold is not met in the present case. Case Title: Kunja Bihari Panda & Ors. v. State of Odisha & Ors. and other connected matters. Case No.: W.P.(C) 33452 of 2020 Date of Judgment: 24 January 2022 Coram: Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar & Justice A.K. Mohapatra Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 7Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Orissa High Court Upholds The Validity Of Odisha Universities (Amendment) Act, 2020

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

"The Subordinate Legislation Under Entry 66 List I Will Have To Yield To The Plenary Jurisdiction Of The State Government Under List III Entry 25"

Tags