Om Prakash - (1.) AS common questions of law and fact arise in these two writ petitions and as they are connected by the Courts order, they are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) AS the facts are almost common in both the writ petitions, they are, brieflly, stated, with reference to the writ petition of Sri Bans Gopal Misra. One Sri Ganga Dhar Sharma, Principal of Sri Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya Khekra, a college affiliated to Sampurnand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Varanasi retired in June, 1979 and then Sri Bhagwat Dutta Tripathi was appointed as an officiating Principal. The post of the Principal was advertised in July, 1980. Whereas the selection committee according to the management committee of aforesaid college, recommended the name of Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj for the post of Principal on 17th August, 1980, according to the petitioner the selection committee recommended his name. It is averred that as the management was deeply interested in Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj and, therefore, it made interpolations in the recommendations of the selection committee in such a way so as to read that not the petitioner but Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj was recommended by the selection committee. Thereupoa, the management referred the name of Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj to the Vice-Chancellor for seeking his approval. The said name was not approved by the Vice-Chancellor by the order dated 18-1-1981 on the ground that there was some manipulation in the recommendation of the selection committee and he directed that steps be taken for a fresh selection. By the order dated 3-4-1981, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, the name of Sri Bans Gopal Misra was approved by the Vice-Chancellor. It is averred by the petitioner that he took over charge on 12-6-1981 and continued to work. On 31-10-1982, the committee of management passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner which was conveyed to the petitioner by the letter dated 2-11- 1982, Annexure 16 to the writ petition. It is this order which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. In the writ petition filed by Sri Bhagwat Dutta Tripathi and by the Committee of Management, the aforesaid order dated 3-4-1981 whereby the name of Sri Bans Gopal Misra was approved by the Vice-Chancellor for. the post of Principal and the order dated 21-2-1984, Annexure 6 to the writ petition whereby the representation of Sri Bhagwat Dutta Tripathi challenging the validity of the order dated 3-4-1981 was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor, are sought to be quashed. The contention of the petitioners is that the Vice- Chancellor is not possessed of the power of review and, therefore, after having disapproved the name of Sri Hari Krishna Bhardwaj he could not have approved the name of Sri Bans Gopal Misra. It is, therefore, prayed by these petitioners that both the orders dated 3-4-1981 and 21-2-1984 be quashed. Writ Petition No. 9255 of 1983 : The only question emerging in this writ petition for consideration is whether the petitioner could be dismissed by the committee of management without seeking prior approval by the Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (2) of section 35 of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the Act, 1973) mandates that every decision of the management to dismiss or remove a teacher which word includes a Principal within the meaning of sub-section (18) of section 2 of the Act, 1973, shall before it is communicated to him, be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and shall not take effect unless it is approved by the Vice-Chancellor. Similar provision is made in Statute 11.31 Part II, Chapter XI of the Ist Statute of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Varanasi made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 50 of the Act, 1973. So prior approval by the Vice-Chancellor is a condition precedent to the order of dismissal of a Principal. Unless the approval is accorded by the Vice-Chandellor, no teacher or Principal can be dismissed within the meaning of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Act, 1973. Admittedly, no approval has been accorded by the Vice-Chancellor and, therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the management is a nullity and has got to be quashed.
(3.) COMING to the consequential relief, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to full salary from July, 1981 till the date he resumes the duties. By virtue of the order dated 3-4-1981, the petitioner became entitled to function as Principal. The contumacious conduct of the Management is manifest from para 33 of its counter affidavit in which it is averred : ............the petitioner was never given the charge of the post of Principal of the College and he never worked as Principal of the College..............." It shows that the management wilfully obstructed the petitioner in discharging his duties as Principal without any authority and arbitrarily, and therefore, the management should be held liable to pay the salary of the petitioner from July, 1981 till he resumes the duties as Principal. The management being enjoined upon to discharge statutory functions is expected to act in a most reasonable, fair and bonafide manner. As the public representatives share power in a democratic set up, it is their first and foremost duty to comply with the orders of the statutory authorities and the statutory provisions and if they do not then they or the body which they belong to should be held personally liable for their arbitrary acts. In this case, the Vice- Chancellor already approved the appointment of the petitioner by the order dated 3-4-1981, Annexure 1 to the writ petition but despite that he was not permitted to functions as Principal as averred by the management itself in the above reproduced para 33 of the counter affidavit. Not only this, some time later by the resolution dated 30-10-1982, Annexure 16 to the writ petition, the petitioner was dismissed from service without complying with the statutory provisions, that is, without seeking prior approval of the Vice- Chancellor. But for these acts of the management, the petitioner would have continued in service and his salary would have been paid by the Government which cannot be doubly burdened for the payment of salary, that is, one to the Officiating Principal and the other to the petitioner for no fault of it. It is interesting to note that Sri H. K. Bhardwaj whose name was referred to for being approved has not instituted anys proceedings but the management alone resisted the claim of petitioner. Such cases should be strictly dealt with and a wrong doer alone should be burdened with the liability. It is necessary to inject greater discipline into the public life and to train and tame the public representative who should get used to rule of Jaw. It is all the more required in the present days when it is a matter of common experience that very often the management committees violate the statutory provisions and the orders of the statutory authorities to the detriment of the employees. It is not known as to what is the financial capacity of the management respondent no. 4. Therefore, it is held that if adequate funds are not there to meet out full liability, then salary to the petitioner shall be paid by the management, respondent no. 4 from its funds to the extent they are available. If the funds of the management fall short even to meet out 50 per cent salary of the petitioner, then the liability to pay salary will be restricted to 50 per cent only and the difference of the salary paid from the funds of the management and of 50 per cent amount of the salary of the petitioner shall be paid by the respondent no. 2, the representative of the State.;