JUDGMENT
S.H.A. Raza, J.
1. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the reply to
the question as to whether the State Government could have taken action under any of the clauses (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) and the State Government has acted within its jurisdiction in appointing authorised controller on the basis of the allegations /charges in the notice.
2. Section 57 of the Act reads as under :
“57. Power of the State Government to issue notice.–If the State Government receives information in respect of any affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government or a local authority)-
(i) that its Management has persistently committed wilful default in paying the salary of the teachers or other employees of the college by the twentieth day of the month next following the month in respect of which or any part of which it is payable : or
(ii) that its Management has
failed to appoint teaching
staff possessing such
qualifications as are
necessary for the purpose
of ensuring the
maintenance of academic
standards in relation to the
college or has appointed or
retained in service any
teacher in contravention of
the Statute or Ordinances ;
or
(iii) that any dispute with respect to the right claimed by different persons to be lawful office-bearers of its Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the college ; or
(iv) that its Management has persistently failed to provide the college with such adequate and proper
accommodation, library,
furniture, stationery.
laboratory equipment, and other facilities, as are necessary for the efficient administration of the
college ; or
(v) that its Management has
substantially, diverted
misapplied or
misappropriated the
property of the college to
the detriment of the
college ;
it may call upon the Management to show cause why an order under Section 58 should not be made :
Provided that where it is in dispute as to who are the officebearers of the Management, such notice shall be issued to all persons claiming to be so.”
3. Section 58 of the Act deals with the appointment of authorised controller which is reproduced
below :
“58. Authorised Controller.–(1) If the State Government after considering the explanation if any, submitted by the Management under Section 57 is satisfied that any ground mentioned in that section exists, it may, by order, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years as may be specified, the Management of the college and its property to the exclusion of the Management and whenever the Authorised Controller so takes over the Management he shall, subject only to such restrictions as State Government may impose, have in relation to the Management of the college and its property all such powers and authority as the Management would have if the college and its property were not taken over under this subsection :
Provided that if the State Government is of opinion that it is expedient so to do in order to continue to secure the proper Management of the college and its
property, it may, from time to time, extend the operation of the order for such period, not exceeding one year at a time, as it may specify, so however, that the total period of operation of the order, including the period specified in the initial order under this sub-section does not exceed five years :
Provided further that if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no lawfully constituted Management of the college the Authorised Controller shall continue to function as such, until the State Government is satisfied that the Management has been lawfully constituted :
Provided also that the State Government may, at any time, revoke an order made under this sub-section.
(2) Where the State Government while issuing a notice under Section 57 is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded, that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the college, it may suspend the Management, which shall thereupon cease to function, and make such arrangement as it thinks proper for managing the affairs of the college and its property till further proceedings are completed :
Provided that no such order shall remain in force for more than six months from the date of actual taking over by the Management in pursuance of such order :
Provided further that in computation of the said period of six months, the time during which the operation of the order was suspended by any order to the High Court passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or any period during which the Management failed to show cause in pursuance of the notice under Section 57, shall be excluded.
(3) Nothing in sub-section (1), shall be construed to confer on
the Authorised Controller the power to transfer any immovable property belonging to the college (except by way of letting from month to month in the ordinary course of management or to create any charge thereon) except as a condition of receipt of any grant-in-aid of the college from the State Government or the Government of India.
(4) Any order made under this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or in any instrument relating to the management and control of the college or its property :
Provided that the property of the college and any income therefrom shall continue to be applied for the purposes of the college as provided in any such instrument.
(5) The Director of Education (Higher Education) may give to the Authorised Controller such directions as he may deem necessary for the proper Management of the college or its property, and the Authorised Controller shall carry out those directions.”
4. On 21.7.98, a notice purporting to be one under Section 57 of the Act was issued calling upon the Management of Raja Mohan Girls Degree College. Faizabad, to show cause within one month as to why the provisions of Section 57 of the Act be not invoked against the institution.
5. The notice contained the following financial/administrative irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Management of the College :
(1) Unauthorised deductions are made from the salaries of the teachers. G.P.F. and C.P.F. account pertaining to the teachers and employees of the said Institution are not properly maintained. At present the payment of salaries to the teachers is stopped hence the Management is guilty of clause (1)
of Section 57 of U. P. State Universities Act. 1973.
(2) The Manager and the Principal of the Institution have unauthorisedly realised the fee which is contrary to the provisions of Sections 46 and 46A of the Act. The amount so realised has been utilised by the office-bearers of the Management for their vested interest. The Institution has been misusing the funds of the Institution. The Management is thus guilty of acting in contravention of clause (v) of Section 57 of the Act.
(3) Inspite of the directions issued by the University the Management and the Principal of the Institution have failed to produce relevant documents for enquiry.
(4) In the matter of appointment of Class Hi employees provisions for reservation, as provided in the Act, have not been followed :
(5) The Management of the Institution/Management Committee is not recognised in accordance with Section 2 (13) of the Act. The University has no right to recognise the unrecognised Managemenl / Management Committee of the Institution.
6. On the date of issuance of
notice, i.e., 21.7.98, an order was
passed by the State Government
under Section 58 (2) of the Act.
According to the said order due to the
illegal actions of the Management of
the Institution a situation had been
created in which immediate action
was necessary, as the
Management/Committee of
Management of the Institution in
accordance with the provisions of
Section 2 (13) of the Act was not
acceptable to the University hence
the Management of the Institution by
the said committee was not in
accordance with law and was illegal.
The order further indicated that as
illegal deductions have been made
from the salary of the teachers and
the Management has failed to pay the
salary to the teachers at the appropriate time and several financial and administrative irregularities were being committed by the illegal Management of the College, the Government of U. P. while exercising power under Section
57 (ii) ordered for suspension of the Management of the Institution with immediate effect and decided to appoint Controller for six months.
7. The aforesaid two orders were challenged in the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the order dated 21.7.98 has been passed without application of mind and in violation of the provisions contained in Section 58 (2) of the Act ; the charges levelled against the Management of the Institution in the notice dated 21.7.98 were vague ; the alleged report dated 20.6.98 of the Registrate, Oudh University, Faizabad, and dated 6.6.98 of District Magistrate. Faizabad, has not been supplied to the petitioners : no reasons have been mentioned in the order dated 21.7.98 for resorting to the provisions contained in Section
58 (2) of the Act and lastly, that the aforesaid orders were passed to ensure the payment of full salary to two suspended teachers for the period 3.4.98 to 13.4.98 who were suspended by the Management with a view to ensure that no action be taken against them in pursuance of the charge-sheet served upon them.
8. I have heard Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Counsel, for the petitioner as well as Sri Ramesh Kumar Singh. Additional Advocate General, who was ably assisted by Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
9. Sri Umesh Chandra has drawn the attention of this Court towards the averments made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition wherein it has been indicated that the enclosures of the notice dated 21.7.98 have not been supplied to the petitioners and a representation in that regard was made by the Manager of the Institution to the Principal Secretary on 31.7.98. He also pointed out that the original copy of the notice and the order dated 21.7.98 have not been served upon the
petitioners. Only a copy of the order dated 21.7.98 marked to the District Magistrate, Faizabad was redirected to the petitioners. He laid great emphasis towards non-furnishing of material/documents to the petitioner on the basis of which the imputation of charges were based. He also submitted that the charges contained in the notice dated 21.7.98 are too vague, sweeping and general in nature and the same are beyond the scope and ambit of clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Section 57 of the Act and the State Government has clearly acted beyond its jurisdiction in appointing authorised controller.
10. Relying upon the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U. P., v. Bramh Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179, it was submitted by the Additional Advocate General that a writ petition against show-cause notice ordinarily is not maintainable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a matter pertaining to issuance of show-cause notice to a retired public servant to reduce his salary observed as under :
“When a show-cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature.”
11. Learned Advocate General further laid emphasis on the fact that the Management of the Institution is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (13) of the U. P. State
Universities Act. 1973 and the Management has no right to administer the College. The teachers were not paid their salary in time since the last one year while the Government grants were given in time. The teachers and the employees were not given promotional scales/senior scales, annual increments and the Management has acted contrary to the provisions contained in Section 60B of the Act. More fee is being charged from the students and donations were also charged from them, contrary to the provisions of Sections 46, 46A and 57 (v) of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor of the University and the District Magistrate sent their report to the State Government regarding the irregularities committed by the Management of the said College. They recommended suspension of the Management of the said College and appointment of Authorised Controller of the said College. It was also submitted that the notice under Section 57 of the Act was issued on the basis of the said reports. The copies of the said reports were annexed with the notice which was furnished to the petitioner.
12. Before dealing with the controversy in question, it will be more appropriate to look into the relationship of an affiliated college to the University. Sub-section (4) to Section 37 provides as under :
“Except as provided by this Act, the Management of an affiliated college shall be free to manage and control the affairs of the college and be responsible for its maintenance and upkeep, and its Principal shall be responsible for the discipline of its students and for the superintendence and control over its staff.”
Sub-section (5) to Section 37 provides :
“Every affiliated college shall furnish such reports, returns and other particulars as the Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor may call for.”
Under sub-section (6) of Section 37 of the Act the Executive Council is
empowered to make inspection from time to time at intervals not exceeding five years by one or more persons authorised by it in that behalf and a report of the inspection shall be made to the Executive Council.
Sub-section (8) of Section 37 purports to the privileges of affiliation of a college which falls to comply with any direction of the Executive Council under sub-section (7) or to fulfil the conditions of affiliation may, after obtaining a report from the Management of the college and with the previous sanction of the Chancellor be withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive council in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes.
Sub-section (9) of Section 37 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (8), if the Management of an affiliated college has failed to fulfil the conditions of affiliation, the Chancellor may, after obtaining a report from the Management and the Vice-Chancellor, withdraw or curtail the privileges of affiliation.
13. The object of various provisions of Section 37 of the Act is to ensure that the affiliated Institutions to an University are managed and administered in accordance with those provisions. Statutes and Ordinances for the proper functioning : say, the studies of the students and the interest of the teachers and other employees are protected and the standard of education may be maintained. These are the regulatory provisions to take action which the University and the Chancellor can always take if the Institution is not run within the parameters of the powers contained under the Act. Besides the aforesaid regulatory provisions as contained in sub-sections (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) to Section 37 and Sections 57 and 58 of the Act, an educational institution enjoys autonomy and the Management shall be free to manage and control the affairs of the college. The limitation of the powers of the Management are only those which are contained in sub-sections (5) to (9) of
Sections 37 and 57 of the Act which deals with the power of the Executive Council, the Chancellor and the State Government.
14. It is thus evident that unless an affiliated Institution is guilty of acting in contravention with the aforesaid provisions, it shall enjoy autonomy or freedom of control and management in its affairs. If the management of institution commits breach of sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 57 of the Act, the State Government can suspend the Management and take over the management by appointing Authorised Controller, but that power can be exercised only if the State Government receives information in respect of any breach of the aforesaid clauses.
15. It is admitted case of the parties that the State Government received information about breach of the provisions contained in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 57 from the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia University and the District Magistrate, who sent their enquiry report to the Government regarding the alleged irregularities committed by the Management of the Raja Mohan Girls Degree College, recommending suspension of Management of the said college and appointment of Authorised Controller under Section 57 of the Act. The State Government was requested to call upon the Management to show cause as to why an order under Section 58 of the Act should not be passed. As pointed out in the foregoing paragraphs the petitioner has clearly stated in para 19 of the writ petition that the enclosures to the notice dated 21.7.98 have not been furnished to the petitioner inspite of Management’s asking for the same, through its representation dated 31.7.98. The averments made in para 19 of the writ petition have not been categorically denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. In para 11 of the counter-affidavit sworn by Sri B. D. Joshi, Regional Higher Education Officer. Lucknow, only this much has been indicated that the contents of paragraphs 16 to 23 are not admitted as stated in view of the facts stated in
the preliminary submissions of this affidavit. Thus there is only a cryptic denial of the averments made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit it has been averred that the enclosures to the notice dated 21.7.98 have been furnished to the petitioner.
16. In view of the aforesaid situation. It is evident that copies of the reports of the Vice-Chancellor as well as of the District Magistrate were not supplied to the Management and hence no opportunity was afforded to it to give specific reply to the said report or to remove the defects, if any, pointed out in the report, hence it can be said that the material on the basis of which imputation of charge were framed were not supplied to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner were denied the opportunity to show cause against the notice under Section 57 of the Act and the impugned order appointing Authorised Controller suffers from the vice of violation of audi alteram partem rule.
17. As far as the charge No. 1 contained in the notice dated 21.7.98, is concerned, it is totally vague, sweeping and general in nature. It only indicates that unauthorised deductions are made from the salary of the teachers but what type of deductions have been made and against whose salary such deductions were made has not been indicated in the order. The charge also does not indicate as to what were the lapses in the maintenance of G.P.F. and C.P.F. accounts maintained by the Institution and whose salaries have not been paid by the Management regularly. The provisions of Section 57 (i) can be invoked by the State Government only, when the Management has ‘persisted’ in committing wilful default in paying salary of the teachers or other employees by 20th day of the month next following the month in respect of which or any part of which it is payable. It is not only one or two defaults which entitles the State Government to take action against the Management but the default has to be ‘persistent’, meaning thereby, that It is continuous constant and repeated. It was incumbent upon the
framers of the charge to have indicated that breach of the provisions contained in Section 57 (i) was continuous, constant and repeated to enable the Management to reply the same. The contention of the petitioner appears to be is that two teachers were suspended. Their suspension orders were revoked by the Management on 14.7.98, under the pressure from the education authorities and they were not entitled to full salary during the period of suspension. Later on the D. I. O. S. under the orders of the Authorised Controller has made payment to the said teachers, the balance of salary for the period the teachers were under suspension. Thus according to the petitioners, the salary of the other teachers were paid regularly.
18. According to the District Magistrate on the occasion of the farewell of the students of M. A. (II), a function was organised and some of the students were harassed for the reason that Principal and the teachers who were the supporters of the Principal were not given presents and good titles. Complaints were investigated by the City Magistrate, Faizabad who submitted a report that some of the students were intimidated, for the reason, that they did not give better title or presents to the Principal or her supporters, as a result of which some of the students boycotted their classes and the police had to be sent to the institution. According to the said report, Principal was held responsible for the said incident, but the Principal has suspended two teachers maliciously. The report further indicated that according to the report of the University, the Management is not recognised by the University and there are four persons belonging to one family who are the Members of the Committee of Management, hence the District Magistrate recommended that the Management Committee should be superseded. Besides the above, there were financial irregularities. In another report, the District Magistrate repeated more or less the same allegations on the basis of an enquiry which was made. The case of the Management of the
College is that those two teacher Ms. Kanak Tripathi and Ms. Sushma Pathak-instigated the students against the Principal of the College and misbehaved with two teachers Ms. Geeta Singh and Ms. Zarin Nazar and when a complaint was received, the Principal suspended both the teachers in accordance with the Statute 14.07, by means of the order dated 3.4.98. Thereafter a letter was sent by the Vice-Chancellor to the Principal in which it was stated that as a result of the suspension of the two teachers, the atmosphere in the college has vitiated, hence, the Principal should create such an atmosphere in which examination may be held smoothly, failing which appropriate action for suspension of the Management and appointment of Authorised Controller would be taken. Thus according to the Management, the action was taken against the Management for that reason.
19. The incident which had occurred had been blown beyond proportion. Such incidents often occur, due to internal bickering between a section of students and teachers. There was persistent demand from the side of the educational authorities for revocation of the suspension of those two teachers and ultimately the suspension was revoked on 14.4.98, but the enquiry continued and a charge-sheet was issued. Pressure was mounted upon the Management to pay the salary of the suspended teachers.
20. The Management forwarded the bill for payment of salary of the teachers for the months of April and May, 1998, but an objection was raised by the D.I.O.S., that as the suspension was revoked, full salary be paid to those teachers. The Management insisted for payment of subsistence allowance only. The Registrar of the University also intimated to the Management that deductions from the salary of those two teachers was not acceptable as the enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate indicated that those teachers were not guilty and hence full salary be paid to the teachers. The Management also received a
letter dated 18.7.96 from the D.I.O.S., Faizabad requiring it to submit salary bill after leaving the period of suspension of those two teachers. Ultimately the Management succumbed and the D.I.O.S granted the approval and cleared the bills and teachers and employees were paid salary. Due to aforesaid reason, some delay was caused in the payment of salary to the teachers, for which the petitioner was not responsible.
21. In view of the allegations and counter allegations made in that regard, it cannot be said that there was any “persistent default” on the part of the Management to pay salary to the teachers in lime and illegal deductions were made. Deductions, if any, were made from the salary of those two teachers who were earlier suspended but later on the suspension orders were revoked and they were paid salary. Payment of salary to the other teachers were delayed or withheld for the reason that from the side of the educational authorities, it was insisted upon that full salary to those two teachers be paid. Besides the above, the provisions of Chapter XI-A were applicable to the College and, therefore, it was the duty also of the State Government to pay salary to the teachers and the employees and the Management cannot be held responsible under that clause.
22. As far as the other allegation contained in charge No. 1 relating to maintenance of G.P.F. and C.P.F. account is concerned, the Management has indicated that the same has been meticulously maintained by the College which was approved by the D.I.O.S. after a detailed enquiry and in that regard letter of the D.I.O.S. dated 18.12.96 was annexed in which certain directions were also given. The lapse on the part of the Management at the most can be said to be not properly keeping the record in so far as the G.P.F. or C.P.F. account is concerned. That lapse, if any, cannot be a ground for taking action against the Management under Section 57 (i) of the Act. Hence, I am of the view that on the basis of the first charge, no
action could be taken under Sections 57 and 58 of the Act.
23. As far as the second charge
is concerned, it pertains to
realisation of unauthorised fee or
contribution from the students which
according to the notice was in
violation to Sections 46 and 46A of
the Act, which is allegedly being
utilised by the Management for its
own vested (interest) which is in
violation of Section 57 (v) of the Act.
The allegation in that regard is totally
vague. No details has been given
about the nature of the contribution
or the fee which is unauthorisedly
being collected from the students.
The report of the District Magistrate,
copy of which was not alleged to have
been furnished to the Management,
only states that on the occasion of
farewell of M. A. (II) students
presents were asked for from the
students. Under clause (v) of Section
57, action can be taken only if the
Management has substantially,
diverted misapplied or
misappropriated the property of the
college to the detriment of the college.
The word ‘substantial’ is of
paramount importance. Neither the
report submitted by the District
Magistrate nor the notice indicated as
to what property of the Institution
had been substantially, diverted,
misapplied or misappropriated by the
Management of the college to the
detriment of the college. On the basis
of such a vague allegation, the”
autonomy of a college cannot be
infringed.
There is nothing on record to
indicate that the Management has
ever substantially diverted,
misapplied or misappropriated the
property of the College to the
detriment of the College hence this
charge cannot be invoked against the
Management for purposes of taking immediate action as contemplated
under sub-section (2) of Section 58 of
the Act. The provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 58 of the Act can only
be invoked when the State
Government is of the opinion, for
reasons to be recorded, that immediate action is necessary in the interest of the college, then it may
suspend the Management which shall
thereupon cease to function. I am of the view that on the basis of the allegations in charge No. 2, such an extreme step to suspend the Management and appointment of an Authorised Controller was not at all warranted.
24. As for as charge No. 3 which pertains to non-production of certain record by the Management, as directed by the University, is concerned, that is beyond the scope and ambit of clauses (i) to (v) of Section 57 of the Act and such a lapse if any, does not fall within any of the clauses of Section 57 of the Act. Besides the above, this charge is too vague, sweeping and general in nature and such extreme action cannot be taken by the State Government on the basis of such an allegation. Similar is the position with regard to charge No. 4 where an allegation has been made that in the matter of appointment of class III employees, provisions of reservation were not followed. The charge does not fall within the scope and ambit of any clause of Section 57 of the Act. Besides the above it is totally vague, general and sweeping in nature.
25. Regarding charge No. 5, which pertains to non-recognition of Management Committee in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act is concerned, the matter falls within the domain of the Executive Council and the Chancellor who can take appropriate action. Under subsection (13) of Section 2 ‘Management’ in relation to an affiliated or associated college means the Managing Committee or other body charged with managing the affairs of that college and recognised as such by the University. If the University does not recognise the Management Committee, the University as well as the Chancellor can take action if warranted by law. If the Management has committed any default in not holding the election or has failed to furnish reports, returns and other particulars as the University has called for the University has been vested with power under Section 37 to proceed against the Management, but for that
reason the provisions of Section 57 of the Act cannot be invoked, because such a lapse does not fall within the scope and ambit of any of the clauses of Section 57. Besides the above, the charge is too vague and sweeping in nature and on the basis of such an allegation which is not specific or definite such an extreme action cannot be taken.
26. It was asserted by the
learned Additional Advocate General
that the material on the basis of
which the imputation of charges were
based were furnished to the
Management of the Institution. Notice
under Section 57 was served upon the
Management through the District
Magistrate. The notice dated 21.7.98 indicated that the State Government
has received complaints from the
Vice-Chancellor by his
communication dated 20.6.98 which is annexed with the notice and the
report of the District Magistrate dated
6.6.98 annexed with the notice. The
petitioner has very categorically
stated that annexures to the notice
were not served upon it. There was a
cryptic denial against that allegation
but nowhere it was specifically stated
that the annexures were served along
with the notice to the petitioner either
by the District Magistrate or by the
office of the District Magistrate. The
original record pertaining to the
service of the notice along with the
annexures have not been produced by
the State which could have proved as
to whether the notice along with the
annexures were served and received
by the Management or not.
27. Non-denial of the specific allegation and non-production of the record/material on the basis of which imputation of the charges were based will lead to only one conclusion that necessary material were not supplied to the petitioner as mentioned in the notice under Section 57 of the Act. The notice does not contain specific charges with regard to the alleged lapses. Petitioners were not furnished with necessary material on the basis of which imputation of the charges were based. The charges were vague, general and sweeping in nature. The Management of the Institution was not given an opportunity to explain
the charges. Some of the charges also does not fall within the scope and ambit of clauses (i) to (v) of Section 57 of the Act. Thus, I am of the view that the State Government has acted without jurisdiction in holding the college guilty of committing financial or administrative irregularities The State Government could not have taken any action under any of the clauses of Section 57 of the Act and hence no immediate action was necessary to suspend the Management and appoint an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the College.
28. The observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Brahm Datta Sharma (supra) was in a different context and Hon’ble Supreme Court rightly observed that the purpose of issuing show cause notice to a public servant is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and hence writ against such a show cause notice is not maintainable. The present case pertains to an academic institution which imparts education upto postgraduate classes. The ratio of the decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case where the question of autonomy of an educational institution is involved.
29. Before parting with this
judgment, I will be failing in my duty
if I do not express a note of caution
to be followed by the State
Government in resorting to take
action under Sections 57 and 58 (2) of
the Act, that until and unless the
lapse or fault on the part of the
Management is persistent which
cannot be remedied, only then action
can be taken under Section 57 read
with Section 58 (2) of the Act. Such
actions can only be taken when the
Management has persistently
committed wilful default in payment
of salaries of the teacher or the staff
of the College or substantially
diverted, misapplied or
misappropriated the property of the
College to the detriment of the
College or for any other lapse which
has imperiled the academic standard
in the College.
30. In Board of Trustees v. State of U. P., 1982 ALJ 698, two eminent Judges of this Court (as they were) has laid down sufficient guidelines that the autonomy of the Colleges as provided in Section 37 (iv) of the Act should not be interfered with until and unless the default as mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Section 57 of the Act are found by the State Government otherwise the State Government cannot take over the Management and appoint an Authorised Controller.
31. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorati quashing the notice dated 21.7.98 purporting to be one under Section 57 of the U. P. State Universities Act issued by the State Government as well as the order of the State Government dated 21.7.98 suspending the Management of the College and appointment of Authorised Controller, is issued. The respondents are directed to hand-over the possession of the Management of the Institution to the petitioner forthwith.
