WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST ‘DEEMED UNIVERSITIES’

WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST ‘DEEMED UNIVERSITIES’

3810
0
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST ‘DEEMED UNIVERSITIES’
WRIT PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST ‘DEEMED UNIVERSITIES’

Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University & Ors.

AIR 2016 SC 73

JUDGES: J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre

Date of Decision: 15-12-2015

FACTS:-

This appeal by special leave has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Madras who allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court, and in consequence, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein as being not maintainable. The instant case was based on a dispute arising out of the dismissal of a lecturer from the SRM University on various grounds. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the university 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.

ISSUE:-

Whether a writ petition was maintainable against the SRM University (respondents), which is a “deemed University” within the meaning of S. 3 of the UGC Act?

JUDGMENT:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the respondent was engaged in performing “public function” by imparting higher education.

The Courts have adopted two corresponding approaches in determining whether a particular function falls within the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the court. Firstly, the Court considers the legal source of power exercised by the impugned decision-maker, placing importance on the source of legal authority exercised by the defendant public authority and secondly, that where the “source of power” approach does not yield a satisfactory outcome then the court may consider the characteristics of the function being performed. Later on, the Courts find the approach based solely on the public authority’s power too restrictive and they come out with a new approach i.e., “public function” approach. Accordingly, if the duty imposed on a body was a public duty and the body was exercising public law functions the court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for judicial review of that body’s decisions. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 649] has held that when a private body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution, by way of a writ petition under Article 226

The Court has provided six reasons for its decision in the instant matter, i.e., (i) the respondents were engaged in imparting higher education to students at large, (ii) It is discharging “public function” by way of imparting education, (iii) It is notified as a “Deemed University” by the Central Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act, (iv) Being a “Deemed University”, all the provisions of UGC are made applicable to the respondents which inter alia provides for the effective discharge of public function i.e., education for the benefit of the public, (v) Once the respondents is declared as a “Deemed University” whose all functions are governed by the UGC Act, then it is considered to be an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and (vi) Once it is declared to be an “authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution then it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

HELD:-

The Court held that the petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, since SRM University had been constituted for and was engaged in performing a “public function”.

To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here  

To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

NO COMMENTS