LexDR. JANET JEYAPAUL versus SRM UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1049 DR. JANET JEYAPAUL v. SRM UNIVERSITY & ORS. (Civil Appeal.No. 14553 of 2015) DECEMBER 15, 2015 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226, 12 - Writ jurisdiction - Amenability to - Writ petition u!Art.226 by C appellant-Senior lecturer against respondent No. 1-University - Maintainability of - Held: Writ petition u!Art. 226 against respondent No. 1 is maintainable - Respondent No. 1 is discharging "public function" by way of imparting education D - It is notified as a "Deemed University" by the Central Government and as such all the provisions of the UGC Act are made applicable to respondent No. 1, which provides for effective discharge of the public function, education for the benefit of public - Once respondent No. 1 is declared as E "Deemed University" whose all functions and activities are governed by the UGC Act, alike other universities' then it is an "authority" within the meaning of Art. 12 and thus, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court u!Art. 226 - University Grants Commission Act, 1956. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that respondent No. 1 is not subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article G 226 of the Constitution. In other words, it should have been held that respondent No.1 is subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Firstly, resporident No. 1 is engaged in H 1049 1050 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A imparting education in higher studies to students at large. Secondly, it is discharging "public function" by way of imparting education. Thirdly, it is notified as a "Deemed University" by the Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. B Fourthly, being a "Deemed University", all the provisions of the UGC Act are made applicable to respondent No. 1, which inter alia provides for effective discharge of the public function - namely education for the benefit of public. Fifthly, once respondent No. 1 is declared as C "Deemed University" whose all functions and activities are governed by the UGC Act, alike other universities then it is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Lastly, once it is held to be an "authority" 0 as provided in Article 12 then as a necessary consequence, it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the finding rendered· by the Division Bench cannot be concurred and accordingly while setting aside the E finding it is held that the appellant's writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against respondent No.1 is maintainable. [Paras 21-23] [1063-G-H; 1064-A-F] 1.2 In normal course, the submission that even F assuming that the appellant's writ petition is maintainable, yet it should not be entertained for hearing on merits and instead the appellant be granted liberty to approach the tribunal would have been accepted. But in the instant case, the Single Judge not only entertained G the appellant's writ petition but allowed the writ petition on merits whereas the Division Bench held the writ petition as not maintainable and thus declined to examine the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petition. It is not proper to direct the appellant at this H stage to approach the tribunal and file a dispute before DR. JANET JEYAPAUL v. SRM UNIVERSITY & ORS. 1051 the tribunal. Instead, it is just and proper to remand the A case to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the respondent's appeal on merits on the question as to whether the Single Judge was justified in allowing the· writ petition on merits. The impugned order is set aside. [Paras 25, 26 and 28] [1065-C-H] B Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 4 sec 649 - relied on. Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvama Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. \I. R. Rudani & Ors. ( 1989) 2 SCC 691 : 1989 (2) SCR 697; T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. VS. State of Kamataka & Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481 -: referred to. Breen vs. A.E.U. (1971) 2 QB 175; R. vs. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin Pie and another (Norton Opax Pie and another intervening) (1987) 1 All ER 564; E.S. Evans vs. Charles E. Newton 382 US 296 (1966)-referred to. Judicial Review by De Smi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.