DR. SMT. KUNTESH GUPTA versus MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, SITAPUR (U.P) & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 25-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

. ...,,.. 
DR. SMT. KUNIBSH GUPTA 
A 
v. 
MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, 
SITAPUR (U.P) & ORS. 
SEPIBMBER 25, 1987 
B 
'-y 
!llANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.I 
Constitution of India-Art. 226--When an authority acts wholly 
-< 
without jurisdiction, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its 
jurisdiction under Art. 226 on the ground of existence of an alternative 
remedy. 
c 
_). 
Administrative Law-A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its 
own order unless powet of review is expressly conferred on it by the 
statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. 
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973-The Vice Chancellor in consi-
D 
dering an order of dismissal of a principal acts as a quasi-judicial 
authority. 
The appellant was the ptintlpal of an institution, the management 
... 
of which had been entrusted to an Authorised Controller under s. 58 of 
the U.P. State Universities Act, iiJ73. Following upon certain disputes 
E 
and differences with regard to the management of the institution, the 
appellant was suspended by the Controller but the order of suspension 
-
Was stayed by the Vice Chancellor. The Controller, after holding an 
ex-parte inquiry, dismissed the appellant from service In exercise of the 
power vested in him by the University Statute 17.06 which provided the 
giving of an opportunity of being heard to the teacher concerned and F 
4 prescribed a procedure for inquiry. The Vice Chancellor, on the 
ground that the charges against the appellant did not warrant her dis-
missal, disapproved the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement 
of the appellant, granting liberty to the Controller to impose a lesser 
punishment on her. The Controller passed an order allowing the appel· 
lant to function as the Principal but at the same time Imposing various G 
restraints and constraints on her powers and duties, which was chal· 
rli. lenged by her in a petition r.Jed under Art. 226. The High Court 
quashed the said order with liberty to the Controller to impose a minor 
penalty on the appellant in accordance with the order of the Vice 
Chancellor. Three days before the High Court delivered its judgment, 
the Vice Chancellor had reviewed her earlier order at the instance of H 
357 
A 
B 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 1 S.C.R._ 
the appellant, and, on the basis of two reports of the Joint Director of 
Higher Education alleging that the appellant had committed grave 
financial irregularities, had approved the order of dismissal passed 
earlier by the Controller; but the Controller, who was a party to the 
writ petition did not bring it to the notice of the High Court. The 
appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the Vice Chancellor passed 
in review by a petition under Art. 226 which was dismissed by the High 
Court on the gr<1und of existence of an alternative remedy under s. 68 of 
the U .P. State l.Jniversities Act. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an 
C 
absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an autho-
i 
rity has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not -i\ -
refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 on the ground of exis-
tence of an alternative remedy. [J62C-D I 
D 
In the instant case, the Vice Chancellor had no power of review 
and the exercise of such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdic-
tion. Indeed, the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on review was a 
nullity; such an order could surely he challenged before the High Court 
by a petition under Art. 226 and, in our opinion, the High Court was 
not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an 
~ 
E alternative remedy was available to the appellant under s. 68 of the 
U.P. State Universities Act. [3620-E] 
2. It is now well established that a quasi-judicial authority cannot 
-
review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred 
on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice 
F 
Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dis-
(. 
missal of the Principal, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. It is not .,}- -
disputed that the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or 
of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on 
the Vice Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice 
Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction In reviewing her order dated 
G Janaary 24, 1987 by h

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