UNIVERSITY VC IS NOT CENTRAL POST & ARTICLE 311

-

 

Shubham Budhiraja[1]


There was agitation against the vice-chancellor (VC) of  Manipur university by the teachers, students etc. and fact finding committee cum inquiry committee constituted who decided against the VC and thereafter University resolved to remove the VC from its post and that removal was challenged by VC in Writ Petition contending that Inquiry committee should have been as per Article 311 but HC Division bench refused it by holding that VC are not central post even though its employment is recommended by CG & the university is funded by the CG. These aspects will not make him as central post and full fledge enquiry safeguard under Article 311 is not available to him.

(I)      Manipur University is a legal entity separate from the Union. Merely because Manipur University is financed by or there is an element of control with the Central Government, it cannot be said that the employees of Manipur University hold a ‘civil post’ under the Union and are entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution

(II)            Even though the Central Government may have a role in appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the Manipur University, he will not be entitled to protection under Article 311 as he does not hold a ‘civil post’ under the Union. Therefore, the elaborate inquiry as envisaged under Article 311 before terminating the services of a government servant is not applicable in present case.

Case Name

Relevant Remarks

S.L. Agarwal (Dr.) v. G.M., Hindustan Steel Ltd. (1970) 1 SCC 177.

The employees of any authority which is a legal entity separate from the State cannot claim to be holders of civil posts under the State in order to attract the protection of Article 311. There is also no master and servant relationship between the State and an employee of PGIMER, which is a separate legal entity in itself. It is a settled position that a person cannot be said to have the status of holding a “civil post” under the State merely because his salary is paid from the State fund or that the State exercises a certain amount of control over the post. The PGIMER Act might have provided for some control over the institution but this doesn't mean that the same is a State for the purpose of Article 311. Therefore the employees of PGIMER cannot avail the protection of Article 311 since the same can be claimed only by the members of a civil service of the Union or of all-India service or of a civil service of a State or by persons who hold a civil post under the Union or a State. PGIMER cannot be treated as a “State” for the purpose of Article 311 and the employees therein are not holding any “civil post”. In result, the 1st respondent is not holding a “civil post” and she cannot claim the guard of Article 311.”

 


[1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year & Bcome(H)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more