COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT & ANR. versus VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 16-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2008) 15 S. C.R. 77 4 
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT & ANR. 
v.' 
VICE CHANCELLOR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7319 of 2008) 
' ,·.~ 
DECEMBER 16, 2008 
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973: ss. 68, 35(2) -
Reference' to Chancellor - Proposal regarding removal of 
c principal .:.... Non-approval of, by Vice..1Chancellor since 
decision of removal not as per s.35(2) - Writ petition -
Dismissal of, on the ground of existence of alternative remedy 
uls. 68 - On appeal, held: Chancellor of University has been 
conferred a wide power but being a statutory authority, it 
0 cannot consider validity' of a statute - Power of judicial review 
has been conferred only in superior courts - High C_ourt 
should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground of 
availability of alternative remedy - It may exercise its writ 
jurisdiction despite the fact that alternative remedy is 
available,, where same would not be an efficacious one ..... 
E Thus, order of High Court set aside. 
Respondent No. 3 is the Principal of the College run 
by the appellants. T~ere were allegations of misconduct 
against him. Disciplinary enquiry was held and he was 
placed under suspension. Respondent no. 1-Vice-
F Chancellor of the University was informed. Respondent -
no. 3 was issued charge sheet but he did not file any reply. 
,~ 
Enquiry, Committee submitted a Report that respondent 
no. 3 was prima fac.ie guilty of committing various acts 
of misconduct. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 was issued 
G notice. He was given fresh opportunity to cross examine 
the witness. Respondent No. 1-Vice Chancellor- stayed 
the suspension order. Thereafter, resolution was passed 
to remove respondent no. 3 from service. Respondent 
:).. 
no. 1 did not approve the proposal of Managing 
H 
774 
-
,..,. 
"'-.. 
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT & ANR. v. VICE 
775 
CHANCELLOR & ORS. 
Committee in regard to removal of respondent no. 3 as it A 
was not as per the provisions of s. 35(2) of the U.P. 
Universities Act, 1973, thus, was liable to be struck down. 
Respondent no. 1 also directed that respondent no. 3 be 
retired as per law since he has attained the age of 
superannuation. Appellant filed Writ Petition. High Court 
B 
dismissed the same on the ground of alternative remedy 
available to the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Chancellor of the University has been 
conferred a wide power. Howsoever wide the power niay 
C 
be, the Chancellor, in terms of the provisions of the U.P. 
State Universities Act, 1973 being a creature of the statute 
itself cannot 
consider 
the 
validity 
thereof. 
Constitutionality of a statute, keeping in view the fact that 
the power of judicial review has been conferred by the 
0 
Constitution of India only in superior courts of the 
country, cannot be determined by any other authority 
howsoever high it may be. The Chancellor, in terms of the 
said provision, may consider a matter relating to a 
decision of any authority or officer of the University as 
to whether the same is in conformity with the Act or the 
E 
Statute or the ordinance made thereunder. Prima facie. 
the Chancellor is not supposed to consider an intricate 
question of law involving interpretation of the Statute vis-
a-vis the jurisdictional fact of an authority. The matter 
might have been different if the Chancellor was required , F 
to go into only the factual aspect of the matter. [Paras 16 
and 17) (784-E-H; 785-A] 
Management Committee, Atarra Post Graduate College 
v. Vice Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi & Anr. 
(1990) Supp. SCC 773, Referred to. 
G 
1.2. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that availability 
of an alternative remedy by itself may not be a ground for 
the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. It may 
exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A alternative remedy is available, inter alia, in a case where 
the same would not be an efficacious one. Furthermore, 
when an order has been passed by an authority without 
jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural 
justice, the superior courts -shall not refuse to exercise 
B their jurisdiction although there exists an alternative 
remedy. [Paras' 20 and 21] [786-A-C] 
1.3. Whether in a case of this nature such a power 
has properly been exercised or not being an intricate 
question should ordinarily fall for determination by t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.