LILY KURIAN versus THE UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 19-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

LILY KURIAN 
A 
v. 
THE UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS 
DECEMBER 19, 1996 
[AM. AHAMDI, CJ AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
B 
Universities : Kera/a University Act, 1974-Sections 60(7) and 
61-f'ower of the Appellate Tribunal under these sections-Uncanalised and 
unguided-Constitution of India 1950-Aiticle 30(i)-Fundamental Right 
guaranteed unde~Whether violated by Kera/a University Act, 1974, Sections C 
60(7) and 61-Held : Yes. 
Service Law : Dismissal-Principal of Training College for Women 
Ex-parte enquiry-Held: Enquiry not fairly conducted-She had lost substan-
. tial period of her service in litigation incurring heavy expenses-Compensation 
awarded to me~t ends of justice-Compensation-Award of. 
D 
· The appellant was the Principal since 1957 from the inception of St. 
Joseph's Training College for Women, an institution run by the religious 
minority and affiliated to Kerala University. She was dismissed by the 
Management after holding an exparte enquiry against her. This order of E 
dismissal was challenged in appeal before the Vice Chancellor, who stayed 
the order of dismissal. She was again put under suspension for insubor-
dination in April, 1970 and a departmental enquiry was instituted. The 
order of suspension was also challenged before the Vice Chancellor, but in 
the mean time the Management appointed a substitute Principal. Both the 
appeals were allowed by the Vice Chancellor holding that Principles of F 
natural justice were violated, and directed that the appellant be allowed to 
continue. 
The appellant had also filed a suit before the Munsiff Court chal-
lenging the earlier enquiry. The Management and the substitute Principal 
also filed suits against the appellant. All these suits were disposed of by a G 
common judgment dated December 6, 1972 upholding the order of the Vice 
Chancellor and permitted the appellant to continue as the Principal. 
Appeals were filed against the order of the Munsiff before the District 
Judge, but without success. In second appeal the High Court allowed the 
appeals of the management and ·held that the Vice Chancellor, who was a H 
431 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(l996) SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A statutory Tribunal had no power to grant reinstatement. This Court 
dismissed the appeal of the appellant on 15.9.1978. During the pendency 
of that appeal before this Court, the Kerala University Act, 1974 came into 
force on 9.8.1974. In view of the provisions contained in this Act, par· 
' ticularly the provisions of Section 61, the appellant filed two fresh appeals 
B before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act. The appellate 
Tribunal allowed the appeal vide its judgment dated 26.5.1977 and ordered 
the reinstatement of the appellant holding that there was violation of 
Principles of natural justice in the disciplinary enquiry. Two Writ Petitions 
were filed by the Management and the substitute Principal against this 
judgment challenging the validity of Sections 60(7) and 61 of the Kerala 
C University Act, 1974 as being violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution 
of India. The full Bench of the High Court vilfe a common judgment dated 
29.8.1979 struck down Sections 60(7) and 61 of the Kerala University Act 
as violative of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Hence this Appeal. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has rightly held 
that Sections 60(7) and 61 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 had given 
powers to the Appellate Tribunal that are uncanalised and unguided. The 
appellate authority can even order reinstatement of a dismissed teacher. 
E These sections are therefore, inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights 
g11aranteed to the religious and linguistic minority institutions by Article 
30(1) of the Constitution of India. Conferment of a right of appeal to an 
outside authority took away the disciplinary power of a minority educa-
tional authority, particularly because the appellate power was unlimited 
F and undefined, including the power to interfere with the punishment 
imposed. Such unguided and uncanalised power which could be exercised 
in appeal constitutes interference with right of a minority institution to 
administer its own institutions. [ 440-B-C; 439-G-H] 
2. Taking an overall view of the matter and considering all the cir· 
G cumstances, some compensation needs to be paid to the appellant. The enquiry 
against the appellant was not conducted in a fair manner and she had lost 
m

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