LexLILLY KURIAN versus SR. LEWINA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c D E F G JI • sio . ~ . .. ' ·-·-~· - -- .! LILLY KURIAN v. SR. 0LEWINA AND ORS. :..: r --. ,. .•. ' .-. . ' September 15, 1978 . •. ·_o ;;_· •.• _• '; ~' [¥. 'V. t11ANDRAc11uo, c.J., R. s. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALL\, _; _ _: : . . . A. D. KosHAL AND A. P. SEN, 11~1 .. -- • :· -- - . - . ' .- . . - • - . • ·' - •• '! ! c.,~onstitution of India-Article 30(1)-Scope a1nbit and n1Jiure of ri§lit" of linguistic und religiouJ mi1t0ri1ies-Whether regulatory restrictions can be imposetl -Whai are the litnits.:.....Iriterference l\--·iih ·righ1·10 appoint and dtsniiss- .teaching ~nd otlier staff-1Yhether providing a right of appeal-against dismissal permissible~ The Appellarit Y.'as appointed·as PrinciPal--of uio"Si. Joseph Training ·coueg~ for \Vomen,\Ernakulam ill the Year ·_1957.~ -In~Octobcr~_t969,·there was:'. an unfortunate lliCiderit bctWcen the Appellant and one.Rajaratnam a·lecturCr Of tlt.C College" placed on deputation by the Governffi.Cnt. On thC b"asis of a complaint' by. Rajaratnam, the l\fmaging Board initiated disciplinary ·pr6ceedings .agaiJ¥t the Apf>ellant.and appointed a retired Principal of a College-to be_an inquiry Officer. The Appellant did not participate in the proce6dingS. The Inqui_ry Officer -held the Appellant guilty of. misconduct. A show cause . notice wit.3. gi.ven to the Appellant. The AppcllMt however, filed a su.it challenging the Validity of the proce"edings. An interim i.Ojunction was issued by the! Ch.ii Court restraining the ~tanagement from implementing the decision, if any, taken· fu the meeting. The l\fanaging Board after due notice to the· Appellant £60.nd that the charges of misconduct .were proved.· Subsequently, the Court held that the dismissal of the Appellant \V<loS legal and proper. During this period the- Appellant \\'M functioning as a Principal aD.d had sent two· communications· tO the Secretary to the Goverfiment calling for termination of" deputation of Rajil~ ratnai:ri."' The ~fainaging Bo<ird vie\\·ed ihe sending Of these communications by the ·.Appellant without reference to it as an act of insubordination, and there.fore, decided to conduct inquiry against the Appellant and she -y..·as suspended pending inquiry. A substitute Principal \Vas appointed. The Appellant filed: an appeal against the· Order of suspension and the Vice-Chancellor directed that the status quo be maintained. The substitute Principal filed a suit for an injunction re:s:- training the . appellant from functioning or interfering v.·ith the discharge of duties of the substitute Principal which was granted by the ~funsif. The. ViCe- Chancenor by bis orders held that the orders of dismissal and suspension passed against the Appellant were in breach of natural ju~tice. and fair play and \Vere conseciuently illegal, null and void. He therefore, ilirected the ~fanagement to allow the _Appellant to function as Principal. The Kera-Ia University Act, 1957 was enacted to reconstitute the University of Travancore into a teaching University for the \vhole of the State of Kerala. The definifiorr of "'teacher" in section 2(j) of the Act is wide enough to take in a Principail. Section 19 empo\\·ers the Syndicate to make ordinances fixing the conditiOD.! of service of teachers. The Ker.:..Ja University j\ct 1957 \Vas repealed by the Kerala University Act, 1969. The earlier ordinances h:ive been saved and continued under the new Act. Ordinarnce 33 provides for an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor against any order passed by the Managemenf in respect of the penalties including · penalty of dismis•al • I .. ' • L1LtY KURIAN V, tli\ViNA 821 . The·Mana~ement filed a .suit in the Munsif's Court. The substitute Pflnoipal also filed il further suit against the Appellant and the po<;tal authorities for prohibitin& the postal authorities· from delivering and the Appellant from receiving the articles addressed to the Principal of the College. The Trial Coun dismissed the suits holding that the Appellate power con' ferred on the Vice Chancellor by ordinance framed by the Syndical~ was a valid confermen~ of power and even after the commencement Of the Kerala University Act, 1969, both the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate had cc;>ncurrent powers of Appeal. It, therefore, upheld the orders of the Vice-Ohancellor directing re- instatement of the Appellant in service. On appeal the District Judge held I\ that the orders of the V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.