S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) THE petitioner" in this case is Committee of Management of Vidya Mandir Degree College, Kaimganj, district Farrukhabad. THE dispute is with regard to the Principal of the College. On 7th February, 1990 the Committee of Management resolved that the Principal of College be suspended with immediate effect. This suspension order is alleged to have been made on the ground that there were charges of misappropriation of funds against the Principal. Against this suspension order the Principal of the College approached Vice Chancellor, Kanpur University to which this College is affiliated. By an order dated 19th February. 1990 the Vice Chancellor, Kanpur University stayed suspension order passed against the Principal of the College.
(2.) ON 21st February, 1990 the petitioner, Committee of Management, filed a representation before the Vice Chancellor requesting the Vice Chancellor to recall the order dated 19th February, 1990. This application has been attached as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. By order dated 5th March, 1990 communicated by the Deputy Registrar of the University to the Manager of the College, the Vice Chancellor has intimated that the application dated 21st February, 1990 filed by the petitioner is not admissible under the provisions of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. The petitioner has now challenged the order of stay passed by the Vice Chancellor as well as the order dated 5th March, 1990 passed by the Vice Chancellor, communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar of the University. Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' lays down conditions of service of teachers of affiliated or associated colleges other than those maintained by Government or local authority. By Section 2 sub-section (18) of the Act where the word 'teacher' is defined, it is cl?ar that the word 'teacher* includes a Principal. In the circumstances section 35 of the Act is applicable to the Principals also. Section 35 (2) of ,the Act lays down that every decision of the Management of a College to dismiss or remove a teacher or to reduce him in rank or to punish him in any other manner shall before it is communicated to him be reported to the Vice Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it has been approved by the Vice Chancellor. Sub-section (4) of this section deals with the order of suspension. It reads as follows : - "(4) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall be deemed to apply to an order of suspension pending inquiry, but any such order may be stayed, revoked or modified by the Vice Chancellor; Provided that in case of colleges establishment and administered by a minority referred to in clause (I) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, such order may be stayed, revoked or modified by the Vice Chancellor only if the conditions prescribed for such suspension are not satisfied"
(3.) ON a reading of sub-section (4) of Section 35 quoted above, it is clear that the Vice Chancellor has been given a power "to stay, revoke or modify an order passed by the Committee of Management suspending a Principal pending enquiry. In the circumstances there is a clear power given to the Vice Chancellor to ex-parte stay the suspension order. In view of this so far as the interim order passed by the Vice Chancellor staying the suspension order is concerned we do not think it to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In regard to the second order dated 5th March, 1990 by which the Vice Chancellor has directed that a representation for recalling of the stay order is not admissible is in our opinion an erroneous order. The impugned stay is an exparte order. It is not a final order. If a party makes a representation that the stay order passed by the Vice Chancellor is liable to be recalled, the said representation has to be considered by the Vice Chancellor in accordance with law before passing a final order. The representation cannot be dismissed on the ground that it is not admissible. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Vice Chancellor has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in treating the representation filed by the Management dated 19th February, 1990 as being not admissible in law.;