Supreme Court of India
DR. SMT. KUNTESH GUPTAversusMANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, SITAPUR (U.P) & ORS.
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 269
- Decided
- 25 September 1987
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
When an authority acts wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court must not refuse jurisdiction under Article 226 on the ground of an alternative remedy, and the Vice‑Chancellor had no power of review, rendering her order a nullity.
Summary
Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta, appointed principal of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, was suspended and later dismissed by the Authorized Controller under the U.P. State Universities Act. The Vice‑Chancellor stayed the suspension, disapproved the dismissal and reinstated Gupta, allowing the Controller to impose a lesser penalty. While the matter was pending, the Vice‑Chancellor, without any statutory power of review, issued an order on March 7, 1987 approving the dismissal based on reports of financial irregularities. Gupta challenged this order by a writ petition under Article 226, but the Allahabad High Court dismissed it, citing the alternative remedy of section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The Supreme Court held that an alternative remedy does not bar a writ when the authority acted wholly without jurisdiction, and that a quasi‑judicial authority cannot review its own order unless expressly empowered. Consequently, the Vice‑Chancellor’s review order was declared a nullity and the High Court’s dismissal was set aside. The appeal was allowed and Gupta was ordered to be reinstated as principal.
Issues considered
- When does the existence of an alternative remedy bar the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226?
- Whether the Vice‑Chancellor possessed statutory power to review her own order under the U.P. State Universities Act and the university statutes.
- Whether a quasi‑judicial authority can review its own order in the absence of express statutory authority.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
- U.P. State Universities Act, 1973s. 58, s. 68
Subjects
Article 226alternative remedyjurisdictionquasi‑judicial authorityreview powerU.P. State Universities Actnullityhigh court jurisdiction
Judgment
....,,..
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·
lenged by her in a petition r.Jed under Art. 226. The High Court
rli.
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
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R._
the appellant, and, on the basis of two reports of the Joint Director of
A
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
B 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 her order dated March 7, 1987. l361H; 362A-Bl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2468
~~. ~
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.1987 of the Allahabad
H High Court in W.P. No. 1822 of 1987.
SMT. K. GUPTA v. MANAGEMENT H.K. MAHAVIDYALAYA [DUTT,J.] 359
->' R.K. Jain and R.P. Gupta for the Appellant.
A
S.N. Kacker, Dileep Tandon, R.B. Mehrotra, P.N. Bhalla and
R.A. Gupta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DUTT, J. Both the parties have made elaborate submissions at
'->r the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition filed by the appel-
!ant Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta. The special leave is granted and we
proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit.
The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad
c
_). High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground
of existence of an alternative remedy under section 68 of the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973.
The appellant, Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta, was appointed the
Principal of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P., on June 4, D
1984 and was confirmed in the said post on May 4, 1985. In view of
existence of two unrecognised rival Committees of Management the
State Government, in exercise of its power under section 58 of the
U.P. State Universities Ad, appointed one of the Additional District
Magistrates of the District the Authorised Controller of the Institu-
~
tion. The Authorised Controller was entitled to exercise all the powers E
of the Committee of Management.
It appears that the appellant, as the Principal of the Institution,
and the Authorised Controller could not see eye to eye with each other
and there were disputes and differences between them in regard to the
management of the Institution. The differences between them reached F
4' to such a degree that the Authorised Controller by his order dated
January 27, 1986 suspended the appellant. The order of suspension
was, however, stayed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University on
January 29, 1986. After hearing the appellant and the Authorised
Controller, the Vice-Chancellor maintained the stay order. There-
. after, the Authorised Controller held an ex parte enquiry and by his G
order dated April 21, 1986 dismissed the appellant from service in
exercise of the powers of the Managing Committee vested in him by
Statute 17.06 of the Statutes of the University. Statute 17.06 provides
for the giving of an opportunity of being heard to the teacher con-
cerned and prescribes a procedure for enquiry which, according to the
appellant, was not.followed by the Authorised Controller. A copy of H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 1 S.C.R.
the said order of dismissal was sent to the Director of Education and to
A
the Vice-Chancellor for approval, as required under Statute 17.06(3).
The Vice-Chancellor after hearing the parties, by her order
dated January 24, 1987 disapproved the order of dismissal of the
appellant on the ground that the charges against the appellant did not
B warrant her dismissal from service and directed that the appellant
should be allowed to function as Principal of the College forthwith.
After the said order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor reinstat-
ing the appellant and granting liberty to the Authorised Controller to
impose lesser punishment on the appellant, if deemed necessary, the
Authorised Controller without passing any lesser punishment, by his
c order dated January 27, 1987 allowed the appellant to function as the
Principal, but put various restraints and constraints on her powers and
duties as Principal and directed her to vacate the quarters in which she
was residing. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the imposition of
such restraints and constraints on her powers and duties as the Princi-
D pal of the College. The High Court, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, by its judgment dated March 10, 1987
quashed the said order dated January 27, 1987 of the Authorised Con-
troller and directed him to allow the appellant to function as the full-
fledged Principal of the Institution in accordance with law. The High
Court further granted liberty to the Authorised Controller to go ahead
E with the imposition of minor penalty on the appellant in accordance
with law and as provided in the said order of the Vice-Chancellor.
It appears that while the matter was pending before the High
Court, at the instance of the appellant, the Vice-Chancellor passed an
order dated March 7, 1987, that is to say, three days before the date of
F the judgment of the High Court, reviewing her earlier order dis-
approving the dismissal of the appellant from service. By the order
dated March 7, 1987 passed on review, the Vice-Chancellor approved
the order of the Authorised Controller dismissing the appellant from
service on the basis of two reports of the Joint Director of Higher
Education, U .P., one dated August 1, 1986 and the other dated July
G 18, 1986, alleging great financial irregularities committed by the appel-
lant. Although the said order dated March 7, 1987 was passed by the
Vice-Chancellor on review three days before the delivery of the judg-
ment by the High Court, no steps were taken by the Authorised Con-
troller, who was a party in the writ petition, to bring to the notice of
the High Court the said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7,
H 1987.
SMT. K. GUPTA v. MANAGEMENTH.K.MAHAVJDYALAYA [DUTT,J.] 361
->.r It is alleged by the appellant that the said order was passed by the
A
Vice-Chancellor in collusion with the Authorised Controller with a
view to rendering the writ petition of the appellant and also the judg-
men! of the High Court infructuous. While we reject the allegation of
the appellant that the said order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor in
collusion with the Authorised Controller, for there is no material
whatsoever in support of that allegation, we are of the view that the B
Authorised Controller should have brought to the notice of the High
'-Y' Court the order of the Vice-Chancellor passed on review.
Be that as it may, the appellant again filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the said order dated
March 7, 1987 of the Vice-Chancellor passed on review. The High
c
t Court, however, took the view that the impugned order could be cha!-
lenged on a reference to the Chancellor of University under section 68
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and, accordingly, dismissed
the writ petition on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy.
Hence this appeal.
D
It has been strenuously urged by Mr. Jain, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the Viet-Chancellor had no
power of review under the Statutes of the University or under the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 and, as such, the Vice-Chancellor acted
wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining an application for review
~ filed by the Authorised Controller. On the other hand, it is submitted E
by Mr. Kacker, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vice-
Chancellor, that as the two reports dated August 1, 1986 and July 18,
... 1986 of the Joint Director of Higher Education, U. P., alleging certain
grave financial irregularities, were not before the Vice-Chancellor, the
Vice-Chancellor was entitled to review her order and after considering
the said reports reviewed her order and approved the order of dismis- F
sal of the appellant from service. Further, it is submitted by the
~ learned Counsel that the High Court was justified in not entertaining
the writ petition of the appellant, as there was an alternative remedy
under section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act and the impugned
order could be challenged before the Chancellor of the University on a
reference of the question to the Chancellor under the provision of G
section 68.
~ 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-
Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1988] 1 S.C.R.
A dismissal 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 January 24, 1987 by her order dated March 7, 1987. The
B said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987 was a nullity.
The next question that falls for our consideration is whether the
High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant
on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. It is true that
there was an alternative remedy for challenging the impugned order by
referring the question to the Chancellor under section 68 of the U .P.
C State Universities Act. It is well established that an alternative remedy
is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. When an
authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should
not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. In the instant
D case, the Vice-Chancellor had no power of review and the exercise of
such a power by her was absolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the
order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on review was a nullity; such an
order could surely be challenged before the High Court by a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution and, in our opinion, the High
Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground
E that an alternative remedy was available to the appellant under section
68 of the U.P. State Universities Act.
As the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor is a nullity, it
would be a useless formality to send the matter back to the High Court
for disposal of the writ petition on merits. We would, accordingly,
F quash the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987
and direct the reinstatement of the appellant forthwith to the post of
Principal of the Institution. The judgment of the High Court is set
aside and the appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to
costs.
G We, however, make it clear that the respondents will be at
liberty to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appellant, if
they so think fit and proper, on the basis of the allegations as made in
the said reports of the Joint Director of Higher Education, U .P. ~
H.L.C. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 226"Sign in to search