R S SHUKLA Vs. HANCELLOR HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
R S SHUKLA
HANCELLOR HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH,C.J. -
(1.) WRIT Petition (S/B) No.21 of 2012 was decided on 24th January, 2012 after hearing the learned counsel for the State, but without hearing the counsel for the Managing Committee of the school and without notice to the Managing Committee of the school. The State has filed a Review Application contending that the petitioner was not a teaching member of the institution. The Managing Committee has filed a Review Application stating that the Managing Committee should have had been heard before the matter was decided finally. There has been some delay in filing the Review Applications. We have considered the applications for condonation of delay in filing the Review Applications and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein, allow the applications.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on merit.
Writ Petition (S/B) No.21 of 2012 has been decided on the basis of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court. A look at the judgment of the Division Bench relied in the order under review would amply make it clear that the same was a judgment in rem applicable to all educational institutions funded by the State Government. In those circumstances, question of giving any notice to the Managing Committee of the institution was a mere formality. Non-service of such notice did not, nor could at all, affect either the merits of the writ petition or any right of any party to the writ petition contrary to what has been held by the Division Bench.
It is surprising that in the Review Application filed by the State, it has been contended that the petitioner was not a teaching member of the institution since he has not taken any class for three academic years. At the same time, it has not been disputed by the State that the petitioner is the Principal of the college. A Principal of the college, as head of teaching members of an institution, is not only a part and partial of the teaching members of the institution, but is also obliged by Law and by reason of his position in the institution to streamline education, ensure imparting education in the light of the policy in relation thereto and to ensure that the education reaches to the pupil attending the institution. If he is not a part of the teaching members of an institution, then none is a part of teaching members of the institution.
(3.) FOR the reasons as above, we refuse to entertain any of the Review Applications. Both of them are dismissed. Consequently, the Review Applications filed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.67 of 2012 stand dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.