@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.@mdashPetitioner Trust is seeking for quashing of annexure A dated 15.3.2012 and also annexure B dated 26.6.2009 - annexure B passed by the 1st respondent to continue the lien of the 2nd respondent as a Principal in RV Engineering College on his expiry of the Term as Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University and also the order communicating that as per S. 14(11) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, to continue the 2nd respondent as Principal after the expiry of the Vice Chancellor tenure at Tumkur University and also stating that the said 2nd respondent has a lien for the post of Principal. Petitioner is a private Trust registered under the provisions of the Trust Act running several educational institutions in Bangalore City and has earned a reputation in providing high standard of education. The Trust has its own bye laws and Rules as per the Trust Deed and clause 16 of the Trust Rules, the private Trust shall be managed by the Board of Trustees consisting of the President, 2 Vice Presidents and 1 Secretary and 1 Jt. Secretary and 1 Treasurer According to clause 32(a) of the Trust Rules the Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Trustees and be responsible to the Board of Trustees in performance of the duties. Among the other duties entrusted as per Clause 32, it is for the Secretary to take responsibility for carrying out the resolutions passed by the Board and also responsible for orderly working of the Trust and he is in charge of the office work and records of the Trust. The Trust is represented by the Secretary. All important administrative decisions would be taken by the Secretary on the approval from the Board of Trustees. The President and other office bearers cannot take independent decision on their own accord on the administrative functions which would have a bearing on the Trust''s financial affairs or repute of the Trust. In the usual functioning of the Trust all correspondence are normally addressed to the Secretary and the same has to be placed before the Board of Trust for decision in the matter. Further it is stated, the Trust is running without any aid or assistance from the State Government and in the matter of appointment of the employees, it has got its own control and also service rules are framed by the Trust known as Service Rules of Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust. It is also stated in this context, the 2nd respondent had been working as the Principal of the Rashtreeya Vidyalaya College of Engineering. During his tenure as Principal, he had been considered to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University by the Government. It is stated, 2nd respondent had addressed a letter dated 28.4.2009 - annexure E to the President of the petitioner Trust informing about his likelihood of being appointed as the Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University and also sought to keep the lien on the post of Principal for a period of four weeks by granting leave of absence. As the President was on urgent work, he had issued a letter on 28.4.2009 to the 2nd respondent intimating him that the Trust had no objection for the 2nd respondent to assume the post of Vice Chancellor. Further, by mistake it was also intimated that the 2nd respondent had been granted a leave of absence for a period of four years keeping lien on the post of Principal of RVCE by letter dated 28.4.2009 - annexure F.
2. 2nd respondent by letter dated 4.5.2009 - annexure G addressed to the Secretary of the petitioner Trust has intimated the fact of his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University, that he is assuming the office of Vice Chancellor and also of handing over the charge of Principal of RVCE. As per the byelaws of the Trust, letter dated 28.4.2009 submitted by the 2nd respondent had been placed before the Board of Trustees on 31.5.2009, the same has been discussed in the meeting held and it was resolved that it was not possible to grant lien on the post of Principal in favour of the 2nd respondent or to grant leave of absence as it affects the functioning of the college. As such, petitioner addressed a letter dated 13.6.2009 - annexures H and H1 to the 2nd respondent intimating about the decision taken by the Board and also requesting the 2nd respondent to send a formal letter of resignation. Once again, in reply, 2nd respondent addressed a letter on 17.6.2009 - annexure J refusing to tender resignation and seeking for an audience before the Board of Trustee. In the meanwhile, Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka had addressed a letter dated 16.6.2009 - annexure K to the President of the Trust intimating that as per S. 14(11) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, a sitting Vice Chancellor is entitled to retain lien on his old post and asking the petitioner Trust not to insist upon the resignation of the 2nd respondent and also not to treat the handing over charge as having resigned the post for which a reply has been sent on 22.6.2009 to consider the issue. Pursuant to the request of 2nd respondent, a special meeting of Board of Trustees had been convened on 28.6.2009 and meanwhile, the 1st respondent having exercised power under S. 133 of the Karnataka Education Act of 1983, passed an order on 26.6.2009 - annexure B holding that 2nd respondent being appointed as Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University on 5.5.2009, is entitled to retain a lien on the post of Principal of RVCE as per S. 14(11) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. Contending that it is a unilateral order passed, petitioner is before this Court for quashing the same on various grounds.
3. In the meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 28.6.2009, the 2nd respondent was heard who later addressed a letter dated 29.6.2009--annexure L to the petitioner by withdrawing the earlier request for lien on the post of Principal and rather to grant lien on the post of Professor and sanction leave from 4.5.2009. The letter addressed by the 2nd respondent was placed before the Board of Trustees for consideration. The Board of Trustees having decided, resolved to grant leave without pay for a period of four years in respect of the post of Professor to the 2nd respondent and permitting him to join the post of Professor at the end of four years period. The decision was communicated to the 2nd respondent on 19.8.2009 as at annexure M. Petitioner also intimated to the Secretary, Governor of Karnataka about the withdrawal of the request of the 2nd respondent for lien for the post of Principal and seeking for grant of lien on the post of Professor of RVCE and also the decision of the Board of Trustees. Also it was requested to the Government to rescind the earlier order dated 26.6.2009 addressed by the petitioner to the 1st respondent-Secretary to the Governor. 2nd respondent acting upon the concession of lien extended to the post of Professor, has also requested to remit the provident fund to the account of the Principal as he did not come under the ambit of Provident Fund under the University. Referring to S. 14 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000, it is stated, S. 14(11) of the Universities Act which provides for lien is not applicable to the petitioner institution since it is a private college run by the Trust. 2nd respondent has not right of lien to the post of Principal and the lien applies only to Professors who are in the service of the University and that State Government cannot direct petitioner Trust to grant lien to the 2nd respondent to the post of Principal of RVCE for a period of four years. Even a Bill was introduced before the Legislature in No. 25/2012 to bring private institutions under the ambit of Karnataka State Universities Act by way of amendment to S. 14 by inserting sub-sec.(12) which also suffered a serious set back and later, that Bill was withdrawn.
4. According to the counsel for the petitioner Trust, order at annexures A and B passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction and arbitrary and that S. 14(11) of the Karnataka State Universities Act is not applicable to the petitioner. Even the 1st respondent has no power under S. 133 of the Karnataka. Education Act, 1983 to issue direction as is issued under annexure A. It is submitted that it is a matter of correspondence between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and matter is settled to extend lien for a period of four years to the post of Professor. 1st respondent ought not to have interfered by passing the impugned order at annexure A. Accordingly they have prayed for quashing annexures A and B.
5. While arguing for the 2nd respondent, Sr. Counsel Sri Rajagopal submitted that the 2nd respondent who was working as a Principal on his appointment as Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University for a period of four years, handed over charge to one Jagannathan (Vice Principal) until further orders and also wrote a letter to the Secretary of petitioner Trust regarding handing over charge. A decision was taken by the President of the Trust to accept the request of 2nd respondent at the first instance to retain the lien over the post of Principal for a period of four years and subsequently, the said decision was withdrawn by the Trust and also in this regard, Government directed the Trust shall retain the lien on the post of Principal in favour of the 2nd respondent. The Government in exercise of powers under S. 133 of the Education and also referring to S. 14(11) of the Universities Act, held that 2nd respondent is entitled to lien for the post of Principal. However, petitioner adopting tactics has only made the 2nd respondent to have a lien on the post of Professor and not on the post of Principal. According to the learned counsel, the Trust also undertook to follow the Karnataka Civil Services Rules as per the decision of this Court and the directions issued by the 1st respondent is binding on the petitioner and it is the duty enjoined on the petitioner to act upon such directions issued as per annexures A and B. It is also contended that petitioner Trust is also running an aided institution as such, such directions are binding on the petitioner.
6. Heard the Government Advocate.
7. The point that arise for consideration in the light of arguments advanced is, whether the petitioner is bound by the directions issued by the Government at annexures A and B in the fact situation to consider the case of the 2nd respondent to extend lien on the post of Principal in RVCE; What order.
8. The grievance of the 2nd respondent is, the President of the Trust has given assurance/lien for a period of four years over the post of Principal in RVCE when he was selected as Vice Chancellor of Tumkur University at the time of getting relieved from the post of Principal and subsequently, it was withdrawn which is illegal and the letters at annexures A and B by the Government is binding on the petitioner Trust since they are governed by the Karnataka Civil Services Rules as agreed by them and also by the order of the government as per the provisions of the Education Act i.e., S. 133 and S. 14(11) of the State Universities Act. Learned Sr. Counsel has referred to various judgments of this Court as also the Apex Court in support of his contentions.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� N Mani Vs Sangeetha Theatre & Others - (2004) 12 SCC 278
�
�
9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner''s counsel that the decision taken by the Trust in its Committee is binding on the President or the Secretary and they have only communicated the decision of the Trust. In a subsequent decision on the letter issued by the President since the Board of Trustees did not approve of it, the 2nd respondent having taken an audience before the Trust, while negotiating, has agreed to become a Professor and have a lien on the said post for a period of four years and not on the post of Principal. Having so expressed, now he cannot fall back and say that the petitioner Trust has to act upon annexures A and B i.e., the direction issued by the Governor through the Secretary.
10. As per the submission made, a Bill was also sought to be moved bring amendment to the Karnataka State Universities Act to create a lien even over private institutions to S. 14(1) of the Karnataka State Universities Act and that came to be rejected by the Legislature as it could not get majority support. In that fact situation, such letter issued by way of direction through the Governor (Office) cannot be acted upon contrary to policy decision taken by the Legislature. Apart from that, as a matter of discretion it is for the private bodies to take a decision as to who should be the Principal and when the 2nd respondent himself had agreed to be a Professor, now he cannot turn around and say that his lien has to be extended to the post of Principal pursuant to annexures A and B, which appears to be non-est orders in the light of the decision taken by the Legislature. Further right, if any as per the understanding between the petitioner Trust and the 2nd respondent is only to the post of Professor and any such directions issued by the Government at the instance of 2nd respondent cannot be entertained.
11. The decisions cited by the counsel representing the 2nd respondent are of no avail in the fact situation. The impugned orders at annexures A and B passed by the Government are quashed. Further, there is an estoppel operating on the 2nd respondent to seek lien on the post of Principal and it may not be permissible for him to claim such a post. However, as per his request, as per the understanding between him and the petitioner Trust, he may opt for the post of Professor in the petitioner institution. Petition is allowed.
