ASWINI KUMAR PATI v. UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN — 1978 DIGILAW 586 (CAL)

G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant application, the petitioner as Secretary to the Governing Body of Saldiha College challenged the legality and validity of the order dated March 10, 1978 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Burdwan University superseding the Governing Body of the said College in the District of Bankura until the Governing Body of the said College is reconstituted in accordance with the directions issued by the University and also appointing Shri Ajoy Sinha, the District Magistrate, Bankura as an Administrator of the said College for the purpose of discharging the powers and functions of the Governing Body of the said College. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the Saldiha College was an institution affiliated to the University of Burdwan and recognized as such and the said College was founded in the year 1966 by Vivekananda Siksha Niketan, a Society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. The respondent No. 7 Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy was appointed on probation for a period of one year as Principal of the aforesaid College with effect from July 30, 1975. But it appears that the authorities were not satisfied with the said Principal and it was alleged by the Governing Body of the said College that the said Principal failed to discharge his function properly and could not enforce discipline amongst the staff and the students and he had also failed to develop and create academic atmosphere in the College. The said Principal thereafter tendered his resignation voluntarily. It may be noted in this connection that the said allegations were denied by the said Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy and it was contended by Shri Roy that as he did not allow undue interference by the Secretary of the Governing Body in the matter of his discharging duties and functions and also improper handling of the College cash, the said Secretary and other members of the Governing Body became displeased with him and he was compelled to tender a letter or resignation. It appears that on February 23, 1978, the Inspector of Colleges, University of Burdwan informed the petitioner by a letter that the Burdwan University Council in its meeting held on February 10, 1978 considered the case of Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy for reinstatement as Principal of the said College and it was further resolved that the direction be issued to the Governing Body of the College to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy in his alleged substantive post of Principal of Saldiha College with effect from July 1, 1976 in terms of Government Order No. 1349 (7)-EDN (V) dated 7/8. 9. 78. The Governing Body thereafter held a meeting but the said meeting was not concluded. But it appears that the Governing Body particularly the Secretary of the Governing Body was of the view that such direction could not have been passed by the University Council and the action of the University Council should be better tested in a Court of Law. It further appeared that Shri Ajoy Sinha, the District Magistrate, who also happened to be the President of the Governing Body wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Burdwan University, inter alia, informing him that the said direction of the University was not likely to be accepted by the Governing Body of the said College and although the meeting of the Governing Body was not concluded and had to be adjourned, he personally felt that the Secretary had been wielding considerable influence on the other members of the Governing Body and it was quite likely that the direction of the University would not be accepted by Governing Body of the College and as a matter of fact, some of the members of the Governing Body had been thinking to take the legal view on the said direction passed by the University Council to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy and if necessary to test such direction of University in a Court of law. It further appears that the President of the Governing Body namely Shri Ajoy Sinha suggested that in such circumstances the Governing Body of the College should be superseded immediately so that the direction of the University should be implemented. It further appears that the President of the Governing Body namely Shri Ajoy Sinha suggested that in such circumstances the Governing Body of the College should be superseded immediately so that the direction of the University should be implemented. It further appears that immediately after receipt of the said letter from District Magistrate, Bankura, the Vice-Chancellor passed the aforesaid Order superseding the Governing Body of the said College and appointing Shri Sinha as an Administrator for discharging the duties and functions of the Governing Body until reconstitution of a new Governing Body of the said College. ( 3 ) MR. Dipankar Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there was no power of the University of Burdwan and/or the Vice Chancellor or supersede the Governing Body of the Saldiha College, namely a Private College affiliated with the said University of Burdwan and to appoint an Administrator on such supersession of the Governing Body. Mr. Gupta next contended that even assuming that the University Council could pass an order of suspension of the Governing Body of a Private College and could appoint an Administrator under the Burdwan University Act and the statutes and regulations framed thereunder, the reasons for such supersession of the Governing Body and appointment of the Administrator in the impugned memo of the Vice-Chancellor were non-est and imaginary and as such in any circumstance, the impugned action as contained in the said impugned memo was unwarranted and void. Mr. Gupta next contended that in any event there was no emergency which authorized the Vice-Chancellor to take such exparte action and on that score also the impugned memo is liable to be struck down. Mr. Gupta further contended that the impugned order is malafide and was passed in a colourable exercise of power and it will be quite apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the said impugned order was passed solely for reinstating Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy as Principal of the College although the Vice-Chancellor and/or the University of Burdwan had no authority to direct for reinstatement of an employee of a Private College. Mr. Mr. Gupta also contended that the malafide action of the University and/or the Vice-Chancellor will also be quite apparent from the fact that the said impugned order was passed on the basis of the suggestion given by the District Magistrate, Bankura and by the said impugned Order the Vice-Chancellor wanted to ensure that the Secretary of the College might not persuade the other members of the Governing Body not to give effect to the said direction of the University to reinstate Shri Roy. Mr. Gupta contended that the impugned order is also malafide an was passed in a colourable exercise of power because it was also intended to prevent the Secretary or the members of the Governing Body to move the Court of law against the direction of University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy with a retrospective date. Mr. Gupta in support of his contention that there was no power of the Vice-Chancellor and/or the University of Burdwan to supersede the Governing Body of a Private College and to appoint an Administrator contended that it will appear from the impugned order itself that the Vice-Chancellor of the Burdwan University in the purported exercise of his power conferred by Section 17 (3) of the Burdwan University Act read with provisions of Statute 12 (Affn) of the Statutes passed the impugned order of supersession of the Governing Body and appointment of Shri Ajoy Sinha as the Administrator to discharge the duties and functions of the Governing Body of Saldiha College. Mr. Gupta contended that Section 12 of the University Act provides for the powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor and Section 17 (3) provides as follows:-IN any emergency which in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor requires that immediate action should be taken, he may take such action as he may deem necessary and shall at the earliest opportunity to report his action to the authority which would have ordinarily dealt with the matter. Provided that where any such action taken by the Vice-Chancellor prejudicially affects any person in the service of the University, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within 30 days from the date on which he received notices of such action an appeal to the University. ( 4 ) MR. Provided that where any such action taken by the Vice-Chancellor prejudicially affects any person in the service of the University, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within 30 days from the date on which he received notices of such action an appeal to the University. ( 4 ) MR. Gupta contended that under the provisions of Section 17 (3) if there is any real emergency which warrants an immediate action to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor may take appropriate action but such action is required to be reported at the earliest opportunity to the authority which would have ordinarily dealt with the matter. In the instant case, because of the supersession of all the Committees of the University and appointment of University council as the Supreme body of University it was necessary for the Vice-Chancellor to report to the University Council of Burdwan any emergency action taken by him at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Gupta contended that provisions of Section 17 (3) does not lay down any power of the Vice-Chancellor as such but only authorized the Vice-Chancellor to take action in an emergent circumstances requiring him to report such action to the appropriate authority at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Gupta contended that therefore it is necessary to find out whether under the provisions of the University Act and the statutes and regulations framed thereunder, the Vice-Chancellor and/or the University had really any power to pass an order for supersession of the Governing Body and appointment of an administrator of a Private College affiliated to the University. Mr. Gupta contended that if there was no such power under the statute then the provisions of section 17 (3) giving the Vice-Chancellor a power to take action in any emergency cannot empower the Vice-Chancellor to take recourse to an action, not warranted under the Act and/or the Statutes and Regulations framed thereunder. Mr. Gupta also referred to the provisions of Statute 22 (Affiliation) referred to in the impugned order. Mr. Gupta also referred to the provisions of Statute 22 (Affiliation) referred to in the impugned order. For appreciating the respective contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is desirable to set out the provisions of Statute 22 (Affiliation):-STATUTE 22 Subject to any decision by the Executive Council to the contrary, if any doubt or difficulty arises in regard to the interpretation or application of these Statutes, or if any matter arises which is not covered by the Statutes, the Vice-Chancellor may issue such direction as he may consider proper and shall report the fact before the next meeting of the Executive Council. ( 5 ) REFERRING to this Statute 22 (Affiliation), Mr. Gupta contended that there was no question of any doubt or difficulty regarding interpretation of application of the statute framed under the University Act. Mr. Gupta also contended that Statue 22 (Affiliation) cannot be read to empower the Vice-Chancellor to take any action, not covered by the Statutes, according to his own pleasure. Mr. Gupta submitted that if any action of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be passed under the authority of the University Act and the regulation and/or statutes framed thereunder and/or if any action of the Vice-Chancellor is otherwise illegal, then such action cannot be made legal by a reference to provision of Statute 22 (Affiliation) and it cannot be contended by the authority of the University that any action deemed proper and just by the Vice-Chancellor may be passed by the Vice-Chancellor under Statute 22 (Affiliation) although such power and/or action is not otherwise authorized by the University Act and/or Statutes and/or regulations framed thereunder or by any other law. Mr. Gupta contended that a direction for reinstatement of an employee can only be passed by a Statutory authority being clothed with a Statutory power and if such direction cannot be passed by the Burdwan University, being not maintainable in law, the Vice-Chancellor cannot take recourse to the emergency power under a Statute 22 (Affiliation) read with Section 17 (3) of the Universities Act and in such circumstances, the proposed action is absolutely illegal and void and of no consequence. ( 6 ) IN support of Mr. ( 6 ) IN support of Mr. Gupta's next contention that even assuming that the University Council could pass orders for suppression of the Governing Body of a private College and appointment of an Administrator for cogent and valid reasons, there was no such reason in the instant case and the reasons contained in the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor being non-est and imaginary the said impugned order is void and malafide on the face of it, Mr. Gupta contended that it will appear from the impugned order that one of the reasons which induced the Vice-Chancellor to pass the said emergency order was that Burdwan University Council had been pleased to issue direction to the Governing Body of Saldiha College to get it reconstituted in terms of the Ordinance 3 (GB) of the Ordinance relating to the Governing Bodies of Affiliated Colleges and in pursuance of St. 18 (Affn.) relating to Affiliation of Colleges. Mr. Gupta contended that this ground contained in the impugned order and/or memo of the Vice-Chancellor is simply imaginary. Mr. Gupta firstly contended that so far as Saldiha College is concerned, there was no occasion for constitution of the Governing Body of the said College in terms of Ordinance 3 (GB) because under Ordinance 11 (1) (GB) there is a provision for special constitution and in such cases there is no question for special constitution and in such cases there is no question of reconstitution of the Governing Body in terms of Ordinance 3 (GB) Mr. Gupta contended that as a matter of fact, the Saldiha College had been contending all along that a special Constitution of the said College in terms of Ordinance 11 (1) (GB) and not a general constitution under Ordinance 3 (GB), should be accepted. Mr. Gupta contended that after a series of correspondence between the Governing Body and the authorities of the Burdwan University, a special Constitution under Ordinance 11 (1) (GB) was approved by the Burdwan University for three years from August 1, 1976 and the tenure of the said special Constitution of the Governing Body had not yet expired. Mr. Gupta contended that after a series of correspondence between the Governing Body and the authorities of the Burdwan University, a special Constitution under Ordinance 11 (1) (GB) was approved by the Burdwan University for three years from August 1, 1976 and the tenure of the said special Constitution of the Governing Body had not yet expired. There was no further communication in this regard from the University of Burdwan and at no point of time after the said approval of the special constitution of the Governing Body for three years from August 1, 1976, the Governing Body of the College was instructed to reconstitute the Governing Body. Under such circumstance the statement made in the impugned memo of the Vice-Chancellor to the statement made in impugned memo of the Vice-Chancellor to the effect that the Burdwan University Council had been pleased to issue direction to the Governing Body of the College to reconstitute in terms of Ordinance 3 (GB) is absolutely incorrect and to say the least, is imaginary. Mr. Gupta contended that any action taken on the basis of such imaginary ground by the Vice-Chancellor is not maintainable in law and on that score alone the impugned memo has got to be struck down. Mr. Gupta further contended that it was stated in the impugned memo that the Governing Body of the Saldiha College had not been functioning properly for a considerable period and the Governing Body had not been able to implement the decision taken by the University Council from time to time. According to Mr. Gupta, such contentions made in the impugned order are also imaginary and not borne out by the records. Mr. Gupta referred to the various documents annexed to the Writ Petitions and the affidavits made in respect thereof and contended that it will appear that there was initially an adverse report of a special Committee appointed by the Burdwan University so far as the College administration and the handling of College accounts were concerned. Mr. Gupta referred to the various documents annexed to the Writ Petitions and the affidavits made in respect thereof and contended that it will appear that there was initially an adverse report of a special Committee appointed by the Burdwan University so far as the College administration and the handling of College accounts were concerned. It will however appear that thereafter the Vice-Chancellor, out of his own accord, forwarded a copy of such report to the Secretary of the Governing Body of the Saldiha College so as to enable him to make his submission against such adverse report and after getting the comments and/or explanations from the Secretary, the Vice-Chancellor himself was satisfied that the College administration was being run quite efficiently and as a matter of fact, the Vice-Chancellor himself spoke highly about the College administration and strongly recommended to the Chairman of the University Grants Commission for the release of funds in favour of the College. Mr. Gupta also referred to the letter of the then District Magistrate, Bankura wherein the allegation of Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy about maladministration and mishandling of College fund were commented upon by the District Magistrate very adversely and it was pointed out by the District Magistrate very adversely and it was pointed out by the District Magistrate that such allegation made by a Principal after relinquishing his post should not be taken into consideration. Referring to these documents at length Mr. Gupta contended that it is thus quite apparent that no action was taken by the Burdwan University at any point of time on the basis of the report made by the Committee appointed by the Burdwan University and in the facts of the case it can be reasonably presumed that the University accepted the Secretary, explanation Mr. Gupta also referred to the report of the Junior Accounts Officer, Government of West Bengal, Education Directorate wherein irregularities pointed out by the said special committee of the University were clearly explained and it was held by the Junior Accounts Officer that the said report was based on misconception of facts and was due to some wrong reporting to the members of the said Committee. It will appear from the said report of the Education Directorate of State Government that the College administration had been taking steps to improve the standard of the College by all means and there was no misappropriation of College funds at any point of time. Mr. Gupta contended that there was no other new material before the University authorities on the basis of which the Vice-Chancellor could reasonably come to the finding that the Governing Body of the Saldiha College had not been functioning properly for a considerable period and/or the Governing Body had not been able to implement the decision and directions issued by the Executive Council and University Council from time to time, in this connection. Mr. Gupta referred to a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (1) The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dinesh Ch. H. Shah, reported in AIR 1972 SC page 29. It was held in the said case that a mere change of opinion regarding chargeability of income on the part of the reassessing officer, different from his previous opinion or that of his predecessor-in-office does not justify taking action under section 34 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act. Referring to the said decision, Mr. Gupta contended that accepting the explanation of the Secretary and further report of the Junior Accounts Officer, Education Directorate, Government of West Bengal, the Vice-Chancellor and the University authorities spoke highly of the College administration and recommended to the Chairman, University Grants Commission to release funds in favour of the College and there was no other new material. The Vice-Chancellor was therefore precluded to suddenly change his opinion and/or to reassess his previous decision relating to the administration of the Saldiha College. Accordingly, the impugned action taken on the basis of such imaginary grounds is malafide and was made in a colourable exercise of power. Mr. Gupta contended that immediately after receipt of the letter from the District Magistrate suggesting to supersede the Governing Body and to appoint an Administrator of the college, the said ex-parte action was taken by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the purported exercise of his authority under section 17 (3) read with Statute 22 (Affiliation ). Mr. Gupta contended that immediately after receipt of the letter from the District Magistrate suggesting to supersede the Governing Body and to appoint an Administrator of the college, the said ex-parte action was taken by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the purported exercise of his authority under section 17 (3) read with Statute 22 (Affiliation ). It is thus quit clear that the reasons which were mentioned in the impugned order were non-est, but the real reason was to reinstate the said Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy and to supersede the Governing Body of the College so that there may not be any resistance from the said Governing Body in implementing the illegal direction of the University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy. Mr. Gupta contended that it is thus evident that the reasons which were set out in the impugned orders were nonest and/or imaginary but the real reason was entirely different. Mr. Gupta further contended that the University and/or Vice-Chancellor had no authority whatsoever to direct for such reinstatement of an employee of a private College. Mr. Gupta submitted that it is all the more deplorable that such illegal exparte action was taken in not haste by the Vice-Chancellor in the purported exercise of his authority in a special circumstance i. e. pretending an emergent situation for the sole purpose of preventing the Secretary and/or the other members of the Governing Body to come to a Court of law before this Court to test the legality and validity of the direction passed by the University of Burdwan. Mr. Gupta submits that it will be quite apparent from the letter of the District Magistrate, Bankura that the governing Body's meeting was not then concluded and had to be adjourned but he personally believed that the Secretary was capable of wielding considerable influence over the other members of the Governing Body and could possibly persuade them to follow his line of action. The District Magistrate also pointed out that discussions were also held in the said inconclusive meeting for testing the said direction of the University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy in a Court of law and/or before this Court. Mr. Gupta contended that the District Magistrate suggested that the Governing Body should be superseded so that the direction of the University should be implemented without any hindrance. Mr. Gupta contended that the District Magistrate suggested that the Governing Body should be superseded so that the direction of the University should be implemented without any hindrance. The Vice-Chancellor of the University immediately acted on such suggestion of the District Magistrate of Bankura and by that process illegally superseded the Governing Body beyond his lawful authority. Mr. Gupta contended that it is unfortunate that for giving immediate effect to the said suggestion of the District Magistrate of Bankura, the Vice-Chancellor acted malafide and in colourable exercise of power by referring to some imaginary grounds. Mr. Gupta contended that it is now a well settled law that an order of reinstatement can be passed only in three cases, namely (a) when a competent Court passes an order of reinstatement on the ground that the order of termination was made in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, (b) when an order of reinstatement is passed by a statutory being clothed with statutory power to re-instate and (c) when an order of reinstatement is passed by an Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial, Disputes Act. Save as aforesaid no other authority can pass an order of reinstatement. Mr. Gupta contended that in the instant case, a direction of reinstatement of a Principal of a Private College was passed by the University Council of Burdwan without thinking for a moment that such order of reinstatement would not have been passed under the law of the land. Mr. Gupta contended that it is extremely unfortunate that the Governing Body of the College was superseded and an Administrator was appointed without any authority so that the illegal direction of the University is implemented immediately. ( 7 ) DR. Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the Burdwan University fairly conceded that no direction was issued to the Governing Body of the College requiring them to reconstitute the Managing Committee in terms of Statute 3 (GB) and reference of such direction in the impugned order is not correct. But Dr. ( 7 ) DR. Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the Burdwan University fairly conceded that no direction was issued to the Governing Body of the College requiring them to reconstitute the Managing Committee in terms of Statute 3 (GB) and reference of such direction in the impugned order is not correct. But Dr. Banerjee submitted that such decision of requiring the Governing Body to be re-constituted was, as a matter of fact, taken by the University Council in its meeting and the Vice-Chancellor, being a member of the Council, was aware of such decision of the Council and as such he had stated in his impugned order that a direction had been issued to the Governing Body of the College to reconstitute the Managing Committee in terms of Statute 3 (GB) although such direction had not yet been issued as a matter of fact. Dr. Banerjee also submitted that although approval was given to the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Saldiha College of the Burdwan University in 1976 and in the letter of approval of reconstituted Governing Body of Saldiha College, it was stated that such reconstitution was made under Statute 11 (GB), but on close analysis of the correspondence which passed between the University authorities and the College authorities, it will be clear that such reconstitution was really made in terms of Statute 3 (GB) and not in terms of 11 (GB ). Dr. Banerjee also fairly conceded that whether the Governing Body was really constituted in term of Statute 3 (GB) or 11 (GB) was of little consequence because the approval of the reconstitution of the Managing Committee had been given for three years with effect from 1. 8. 76 and, accordingly, it cannot be denied that on the date of passing the impugned order by the Vice-Chancellor, a validly constituted Managing Committee had been functioning and its tenure had not then expired. But Dr. Banerjee contended that after scrutinizing the facts of the case, the University Council decided that such Governing Body should be reconstituted in terms of 3 (GB) and it cannot be contended that the University Council had no authority to take such decision that the Governing Body of a particular College should be constituted in a particular way. Dr. But Dr. Banerjee contended that after scrutinizing the facts of the case, the University Council decided that such Governing Body should be reconstituted in terms of 3 (GB) and it cannot be contended that the University Council had no authority to take such decision that the Governing Body of a particular College should be constituted in a particular way. Dr. Banerjee also contended that the Vice-Chancellor was clothed with emergency power as referred to hereinbefore because exigencies of circumstances may require the Vice-Chancellor to exercise such emergency power. Dr. Banerjee also submitted that such emergency power was to be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor only as a stop gap arrangement and the Vice-Chancellor was required to refer his decision to the appropriate Committee as referred to in the University Act and the Statute and Regulations framed thereunder. Dr. Banerjee contended that as a matter of fact, the letter of the District Magistrate, Bankura was received by the Vice-Chancellor on March 10, 1978 informing him that the direction of the University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy might not be accepted by the Governing Body and it was suggested by the said District Magistrate that the Governing Body should be superseded. Immediately after receiving the said letter, the Vice-Chancellor felt that an emergency situation was prevailing and as such he should exercise his emergency power under the University Act and the Statute framed thereunder. It was only for this reason that on March 10, 1978, namely the date when he received the letter of the District Magistrate he passed the impugned order. It will, however, appear from the records of the University placed before this Court by Dr. Banerjee that on March 10, 1978 at 12 noon a meeting of the University Council of the Burdwan University was already scheduled to be held and as such meeting was also held. It is, therefore, most amazing to note that the Vice-Chancellor chose to exercise his emergency power on March 10, 1978 although being a member of the University Council, he was fully aware that at 12 noon on the very same date the University Council was going to held its meeting. In my view, in such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the Vice-Chancellor was really entitled to take the aid emergency action even assuming that he had power to pass the impugned order in an emergency circumstance. Dr. In my view, in such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the Vice-Chancellor was really entitled to take the aid emergency action even assuming that he had power to pass the impugned order in an emergency circumstance. Dr. Banerjee however, submitted that the action of the Vice-Chancellor was referred to the University Council subsequently and the University Council approved such action of the Vice-Chancellor and as such there was ratification of his action. It may, however, be noted in this connection that the fact of subsequent ratification by the University Council will not justify the unseemly hasty action of the Vice-Chancellor in as much as on the very same date at 12 noon a Meeting of the University Council was scheduled to take place and the Vice-Chancellor, a member of such Council was aware of such meeting. It does not appear to me that the situation was so urgent that the Vice-Chancellor could not wait an hour or two on the said date so that the matter may be referred to in the meeting of the Council Dr. Banerjee, next submitted that there were reports and counter-reports relating to the affairs of Saldiha College and although the Vice-Chancellor and University authorities recommended the case of Saldiha College before the University Grants Commission and as a matter of fact had praised the action taken by the Secretary in developing the said College and there was also praise about the management of the said College by the Governing Body of the College, it cannot be contended that there was no material before the University on the basis of which it could not be said that the administration of the College was not being run smoothly for quite sometime. Accordingly, Dr. Banerjee contended that it cannot be contended by the petitioner that all the grounds referred to in the impugned order were non-est. Dr. Banerjee stated that the Government Circular to the effect that employees of University who had been dismissed and or were forced to remain in absence due to political reasons, should be re-instated had no statutory force, but such decision of the State Government was taken note of by the University authorities and the University authorities also agreed with such policy decision of the State Government and wanted to enforce the direction contained in the said impugned order. Dr. Banerjee further submitted that it is true that Mr. Dr. Banerjee further submitted that it is true that Mr. Mukul Ranjan Roy had made series of submissions earlier before the University against his termination of service and he did not get any relief from the University. But the University authorities were still entitled to reassess the case of Shri Mukul Ranjan roy and as a matter of fact, a Special Committee had been appointed by the University to go into the allegation made by Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy and the University Council accepted the recommendation of the said special committee that Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy had not really tendered his resignation voluntarily but was forced to resign on political grounds. Accordingly, the University Council through it desirable that Shri Roy should be re-instated as Principal retrospectively and a direction was issued by the University Council in that regard. Dr. Banerjee contended that the University has also a responsibility to look into the security and dignity of the employees of the University and the Colleges affiliated under it and it cannot be contended that by passing a direction for re-instatement of a Principal, wrongfully dismissed on political reasons by the Governing Body of a College, the University authorities had over-stepped their limits. Dr. Banerjee, however, fairly conceded on the question of law that the order of reinstatement of a private employee cannot be passed except in the aforesaid three circumstances because the law is now settled on that point. In this connection, Dr. Banerjee, however, referred to the West Bengal College Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 and stated that the said Act was an independent Act which authorizes the statutory authority to pass appropriate orders on an appeal preferred by an aggrieved teacher and within the scope and ambit of appropriate order under 12 (2) of the statute, an order of re-instatement can also be passed. Dr. Banerjee, however, very fairly conceded that the records of the University do not establish that an appeal in terms of the said Act was really preferred by Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy and the impugned direction was passed in the capacity of an appellate authority. Dr. Banerjee, however, very fairly conceded that the records of the University do not establish that an appeal in terms of the said Act was really preferred by Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy and the impugned direction was passed in the capacity of an appellate authority. He, however, contended that series of representations were made from time to time by the aggrieved Principal, since dismissed by the Governing Body of the College and as aforesaid, the University authorities in their anxiety to render justice to the dismissed Principal appointed a special committee to go into the matters and after giving opportunities to both the parties considered the facts and circumstances of the case and accepted the finding of the said Committee that Sri Mukul Ranjan Roy was really forced to tender his resignation and it was not a case of voluntary resignation and there was also political pressure in that regard. It is, therefore, clear that there was no order passed by the appellate authority in terms of the said West Bengal Teachers (Security of Service) Act, 1975 and accordingly, the direction to re-instate the dismissed Principal by the University of Burdwan was not maintainable in law. I, however, make it clear that I have not decided the respective contentions of the parties as to whether Sri Roy had voluntarily resigned or he was forced to resign and that also on political grounds because such adjudication by this Court is not necessary for disposing of the Rule. Suffice it to say at this stage that even assuming that Sri Roy was forced to resign in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of reinstatement not having been passed by any statutory authority clothed with power reinstatement, such direction for re-instatement of Sri Roy is illegal and without jurisdiction. The anxiety of the University authority for an aggrieved teacher may be appreciated but the order of reinstatement cannot be sustained in a court of law. ( 8 ) DR. Banerjee also raised some preliminary objections about the maintainability of the application. He contended that the other members of the Governing Body not having been impleaded in the instant writ application either as petitioners or as respondents, the instant writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the present petitioner appearing as Secretary of the Governing Body of the Saldiha College. Dr. He contended that the other members of the Governing Body not having been impleaded in the instant writ application either as petitioners or as respondents, the instant writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the present petitioner appearing as Secretary of the Governing Body of the Saldiha College. Dr. Banerjee also submitted that there was no decision of the Governing Body to move this Court an as such, the Secretary was not authorized to come to this Court and to move the instant writ application. In this connection, Dr. Banerjee referred to the decision of this Court made in the case of (2) Ram Chandra v. Adhar Biswas, reported in AIR 1952 Calcutta, page 72 and the decision's made by this Court in the cases of (3) Panchanan Jash v. Board of Secondary Education, West Bengal, reported in 71 CWN page 189 and (4) Director General, Ordnance Factories, Employees Association v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1969 Calcutta, page 149. Dr. Banerjee also referred to a Supreme Court decision in respect of this contention of Dr. Banerjee. The aforesaid decision was made by the Supreme Court in the case of (5) Ramesh Prosad Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1978 SC page 327. In reply to this contention of Dr. Banerjee, Mr. Pal appearing with Mr. Dipankar Gupta submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Governing Body having been approved for three years had a right to continue for three years and the petitioner being a member of the Governing Body was also affected individually because his right to continue in the Governing Body was sought to be taken away by the impugned order. Mr. Pal further contended that the other members of the Governing Body may be proper parties but it cannot be contended that for non-joinder of those parties the writ application itself is not maintainable. He also submitted that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel as stated hereinbefore are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Pal further contended that the other members of the Governing Body may be proper parties but it cannot be contended that for non-joinder of those parties the writ application itself is not maintainable. He also submitted that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel as stated hereinbefore are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Pal contended that ordinarily, a person not having any proprietary or fiduciary interest may not be entitled to move the writ application but if a person is affected by some order then even apart from the fact that he had no proprietary or fiduciary interest in the matter, he is also entitled to move the writ application before this Court. Mr. Pal, in this connection, referred to the decision made in the case of (6) J. N. and Company v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A. I. R. 1971 S. C. page 1507 and also the case of (7) Jesbhai Motibhai Desai v. Rosan Kumar, reported in A. I. R. 1976 S. C. page 578. He also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (8) Calcutta Gas Company (P) Limited v. State of West Bengal, reported in A. I. R. 1962 S. C. page 1044. It was held in the said cases that ordinarily persons having no legal right cannot challenge in a writ petition the legality and validity of a particular order but if the petitioner is interested and is affected by the impugned order he can challenge such case although he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest. It was held in the case of J. N. and Company that a petitioner must be a person prejudicially affected by the act or omission of the authority which is challenged and not a mere busy body who seeks to interfere in a case which does not concern him. It appears to me to challenge a particular order to which he is not concerned at all. He happens to be the Secretary of a Governing Body and he is affected by the impugned order. Accordingly, to assail his right to remain in the Governing Body which is sought to be superseded illegally, the petitioner is entitled to move this writ application before this Court. Accordingly, I cannot subscribe to the contentions of Dr. He happens to be the Secretary of a Governing Body and he is affected by the impugned order. Accordingly, to assail his right to remain in the Governing Body which is sought to be superseded illegally, the petitioner is entitled to move this writ application before this Court. Accordingly, I cannot subscribe to the contentions of Dr. Banerjee that the writ application is not maintainable at the instance of the present petitioner. ( 9 ) MR. Mukherjee the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7, namely, Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy contended that under section 17 (3) read with Statute 22 of the Affiliation the Vice-Chancellor had an authority to pass the impugned order and no exception can be taken to the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor in the facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Mukherjee, however, contended that the Government circular containing the Government decision to re-instate the employees of the University who had been dismissed on political grounds or who were prevented from acting as such on political reasons, had no binding effect on the University but the direction to re-instate was only a recommendation or a request. Mr. Mukherjee also contended that pursuant to Government request the direction made by the University to the Governing Body of the College to re-instate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy was nothing but a request and it was not a mandate from the University. It may be noted, however, that Dr. Banerjee appearing for the University did not accept this contention of Mr. Mukherjee and Dr. Banerjee on the contrary contended that the University was proceeding on the footing that the said direction of the University was binding on the College authorities and as they failed to take action an emergency situation arose for which the Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned order. Mr. Mukherjee, also referred to a decision of this Court made in the case of (9) University of Calcutta v. Khagendra Nath Sen, reported in 1975 (2) C. L. J. page 132. Relying on the said decision Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the University had power to supersede the Governing Body of a private college affiliated to the University and to appoint an Administrator pending reconstitution of the Governing Body. Relying on the said decision Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the University had power to supersede the Governing Body of a private college affiliated to the University and to appoint an Administrator pending reconstitution of the Governing Body. It may, however, be noted that the aforesaid decision was made by this Court on a clear finding that the Calcutta University had wide power under the provisions of Section 4 (11) of the Calcutta University Act and under the said power the University authority was entitled to supersede the Governing Body of a College to take steps for appointment of Administrator for the administration of the College in the meantime. It, however, appears to me that there is no such power expressly under the Act, Statute or Regulation relating to the Burdwan University and as such, the University and/or the Vice-Chancellor is not entitled to supersede the Governing Body of a College and/or appoint an Administrator under the Burdwan University Act and the Rules and Statutes framed thereunder. Even assuming that the University and the Vice-Chancellor had authority, in an appropriate case, to pass such order of supersession of the Governing Body and to appoint an Administrator, in my view, Mr. Gupta is justified in contending that in the instant case such order was passed on non-est grounds and the reasons which were disclosed in the impugned order were not the real reasons but the real reason which comes to the light on the basis of the subsequent materials and the affidavits filed by the parties, is that to make sure that the direction of the University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy is not frustrated by the Managing Committee, the impugned order was passed as an emergency measures by the Vice-Chancellor, Sri Rama Ranjan Roy. As I have already found that reinstatement order of the said Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy was not passed by any statutory authority clothed with statutory power for such reinstatement, the aforesaid direction passed by the University of Burdwan was not legally binding on the Governing Body of the College and as such, it cannot be contended that for enforcing a direction, which cannot be lawfully enforced, an order of supersession of the Governing Body and consequential appointment of an Administrator is warranted. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Rule is made absolute and the impugned order directing supersession of the Governing Body and appointment of the Administrator of the Saldiha College is quashed. There will be no order as to cost in this Rule. ( 11 ) ALONG with this Rule, another Rule, being Rule No. 1391 (W) of 1978, was also heard analogously because the facts and circumstances of the Civil Rule No. 1391 (W) of 1978 are also similar and common. By mutual consent, the learned Counsels for the respective parties in both the Rules also referred to the statements and annexures to the writ petitions of both the Rules. In Civil Rule No. 1391 (W) of 1978, the direction of the University to re-instate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy as Principal of the Saldiha College with effect from 1st of July, 1976 is under challenge. I have already held in the earlier Rule which, as aforesaid, was heard analogously with the present Rule, that such order of reinstatement could not be passed by the Burdwan University in the facts of the case. Accordingly, this impugned direction to reinstate Sri Roy is also held illegal and not binding. Mr. Mukherjee the learned Counsel appearing for Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy, however, contended that the Administrator was not restrained by any interim order if any of the said Civil Rules to continue as Administrator of the College and the said Administrator, in the mean time, had issued an order of appointment in favour of Shri Roy and as such, the said order remains unaffected. Mr. Mukherjee contended that even assuming that the University authority could not direct for re-instatement of Shri Roy as Principal of the Saldiha College, the College authorities of their own accord can always reappoint the said Principal. In the instant case, such appointment having been passed by the Administrator the instant Rule has become infructuous and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever. Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted in reply to the said contention of Mr. Mukherjee that the appointment of the Administrator and the supersession of the Governing Body had been challenged in the earlier Rule and the direction of the University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy as Principal, with retrospective effect was also challenged in the instant writ petition. Mukherjee that the appointment of the Administrator and the supersession of the Governing Body had been challenged in the earlier Rule and the direction of the University to reinstate Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy as Principal, with retrospective effect was also challenged in the instant writ petition. If during the pendency of the Rule, an Administrator takes further step for giving effect to the impugned directions of the University, the Writ Court is entitled to set aside such further action in furtherance of the impugned direction. Mr. Gupta contended that it is a settled principle of law that all actions taken pursuant to the impugned order must abide by the result of the Rule. I think, there is force in the contention of Mr. Gupta and I am inclined to accept the same. The Governing Body of the College was not lawfully superseded and the consequential appointment of the Administrator was without jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment made by the Administrator also cannot be sustained in law. It may be noted, in this connection, that admittedly Shri Roy has not yet assumed charge as the Principal of Saldiha College in view of the pendency of the Rule. ( 12 ) ACCORIDNGLY, this Rule also succeeds and is made absolute. The impugned memo passed by the University directing for re-instatement of Shri Mukul Ranjan Roy as Principal of the Saldiha College and the order of appointment passed in terms thereof by the Administrator are also quashed. ( 13 ) THERE will be, however, no order as to costs. ( 14 ) LET the operation of the orders passed in both the Rules be stayed for a period of two weeks after the re-opening of this Court after the long Puja Vacation, as prayed for by Dr. Banerjee, appearing for the University of Burdwan. Rule made absolute.