INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Bombay-Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 27 April 2023. In the case of SHRI GADGE MAHARAJ VIDYALAYA MANDAL (SOCIETY) THR. PRESIDENT, ADV. SUHASRAO B. TIDKE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI, AND ORS IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2348 OF 2021 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. W. CHANDWANI, disputes and conflicts often arise, necessitating judicial intervention to resolve them. This blog post delves into a notable judgment concerning a writ petition filed by a college principal and aggrieved employees. The case center’s around the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor of a university to initiate disciplinary action against the principal and the grievances raised by the employees. Through this common judgment, the court examines the legal framework and the powers vested in the Vice-Chancellor, ultimately rendering a decision.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves three writ petitions that address interconnected issues. The principal, appointed at Shri Gadge Maharaj Vidyalaya in Murtizapur, faced complaints from aggrieved employees who filed a police complaint and made subsequent complaints to various authorities. The Vice-Chancellor of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University constituted a three-member committee to investigate the grievances, which the principal objected to. The committee submitted its report, leading the Vice-Chancellor to direct the college to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the principal. This action prompted the principal to challenge the Vice-Chancellor’s direction and subsequent communication regarding disciplinary proceedings.
Additionally, the aggrieved employees filed a separate writ petition seeking the implementation of the Vice-Chancellor’s communication and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the principal. The management of the college, represented by Shri Gadge Maharaj Vidyalaya Mandal, also filed a writ petition seeking approval for the re-appointment of the principal and challenging the registrar’s order refusing to approve the proposal.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
The principal’s counsel argued that the Vice-Chancellor lacked the jurisdiction to direct the management of a private affiliated college to initiate disciplinary action against its employees. They contended that Section 12 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, which outlines the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor, does not grant specific authority to initiate disciplinary action against an employee. The counsel suggested that the aggrieved employees should have approached the Grievances Committee established under Section 79 of the Act to address their grievances.
On the other hand, the aggrieved employees’ senior counsel asserted that Section 12(14)(a) of the Act empowered the Vice-Chancellor to consider complaints made by employees of affiliated colleges and conduct inquiries. They argued that since the college and management failed to address the employees’ grievances, the Vice-Chancellor’s intervention was justified under the spirit of Section 12. They also referred to the nature of the complaints and emphasized that the aggrieved employees had no choice but to approach the Vice-Chancellor.
The counsel representing the college management challenged the Vice-Chancellor’s power to constitute a three-member inquiry committee and direct the management to conduct disciplinary proceedings. They argued that disciplinary action against an employee should be initiated solely by the employer, in this case, the management. They further claimed that the re-appointment of the principal was wrongly denied, as the management had complied with all necessary requirements.
LAWS INVOLVED
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: This legislation outlines the powers and duties of public universities in Maharashtra, including the Vice-Chancellor’s role. It provides a legal framework for the functioning and governance of universities in the state.
- Section 12(14)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: This specific provision empowers the Vice-Chancellor to consider complaints made by employees of affiliated colleges and conduct inquiries. It is the focal point of contention in the case, with different interpretations regarding the extent of the Vice-Chancellor’s jurisdiction.
- Section 79 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: This section establishes a Grievances Committee, which is responsible for addressing various grievances of teachers and employees, including those from affiliated colleges. It provides a formal mechanism for resolving grievances within the university system.
- Relevant labour laws: In addition to the specific provisions of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, other labour laws may also come into play in the case. These could include laws related to employee rights, disciplinary actions, and dispute resolution, depending on the specific nature of the grievances raised by the employees and the actions taken by the management.
CASE LAWS
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and others Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and others (2010) 8 SCC 372- In this case, the Supreme Court of India considered the issue of the jurisdiction of Vice-Chancellors in affiliated colleges. The court held that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to inquire into complaints against employees of affiliated colleges under Section 12(14)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. This judgment provides guidance on the interpretation of the relevant provision and its application to similar cases.
Bharathidasan University and another Vs. All India Council for Technical Education (2001) 8 SCC 676 – This case dealt with the autonomy of affiliated colleges and the authority of Vice-Chancellors. The court held that Vice-Chancellors have the power to supervise the functioning of affiliated colleges and ensure compliance with university regulations. The judgment emphasized the need for a harmonious relationship between the university and affiliated colleges to maintain academic standards and discipline.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
After considering the arguments and examining the relevant provisions of the Act, the court found that Section 12(14) of the Act of 2016 did not confer the power upon the Vice-Chancellor to entertain complaints or grievances between employees of an affiliated college. The court emphasized that the Vice-Chancellor’s powers primarily pertain to matters concerning the administration, finance, and overall functioning of the university and its properties. It was noted that Section 79 of the Act specifically established a Grievances Committee to address various grievances of teachers and employees, including those from affiliated colleges.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
