JUDGMENT Normally, the Law Courts would be loath to interfere with the administrative decisions of the University Authorities, unless the same can be termed to be contrary to the known principles of law, statutory or otherwise, or for reasons extraneous to the purpose and object of maintaining a proper educational atmosphere and in that event it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to set right the wrong. 2. In the matter under consideration whereas the petitioners contended that for the purpose of protection of interest or the principal, Dr. S. C. Chowdhury, University Authority has dissolved, the Governing Body of the College and appointed an Administrator without any independent application of mind. The University Authority contended that there were sufficient materials before the Authorities on the basis of which the University came to such a decision in regard to the appointment of an Administrator over the college. 3. The issue, therefore, is to be considered as to whether there was any independent application of mind or the entire action has been the resultant effect of a motive viz. to protect the interest of the Principal of the College. It is now well-settled and I need not dialete on that issue much as regards the power of the Writ Court in the matter of going into the factual aspect of the matter when there ought to be an independent application of mind. 4. Before adverting to the rival contentions, a brief reference to facts ought to be noted at this juncture. 5. The petitioner No. 1, the Brahmo Samaj Education Society is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Brahmos in the city of Calcutta set up the City Group of Colleges at different parts of the city of Calcutta including Heramba Chandra College being a Day College for male students at 23/49, Gariahat Road, Calcutta. Attempts were made from the College Authorities to bring home their contention that the Brahmo Samaj Education Society is entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India by reason of which an application was moved under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 96 83-84 of 1983. In the said writ petition, the Supreme Court on 2nd April, 1984 directed the College Service Commission to send a Panel of 3 names for every vacancy of Principal, Vice-Principal and Teachers and the petitioners were directed to make selection and appointment from out of such panels. In pursuance whereof, the Education Society has appointed a number of teachers at different colleges administered by the Society. The Director of Public Instruction, however, in 1979 asked the Governing Body of the College to appoint one Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury as Principal of the College and the Governing Body of the College at its meeting on 23rd September, 1979 resolved to issue a letter of appointment to Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury as recommended. The Council of the Brahmo Samaj Education Society at its meeting on 26th September, 1979 accepted the recommendation of the Governing Body and appointed Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury on Probation for one year and subsequently on completion of the probationary period, Dr. Chowdhury was confirmed as Principal of Heramba Chandra College. 6. On 2nd October, 1985, the Governing Body of Heramba Chandra College, however, convened a meeting to discuss the conduct of the Principal and after discussion, an unanimous resolution was adopted. Since strenuous submissions have been made on this Court, it would be worthwhile to set out the resolution so adopted in extenso : "Considered the statement of the Chairman of the Governing Body about various wrongful acts of omissions and commission on the part of Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury together with related documentary evidences. The Governing Body is of the opinion that a prima facie case is there against him and resolved that it is a fit case for starting a disciplinary proceeding and putting him under suspension". 7. It is to be noted incidentally that Dr. Chowdhury, however, was absent at the said meeting. In terms of the Constitution of Brahmo Samaj Education Society, however, a fun her meeting of the Council of the Society was held on 19th October, 1985 to consider the resolution of the Governing Body of the Heramba Chandra College. The Council decided that the Governing Body of Heramba Chandra College should be advised to give Dr. Chowdhury an opportunity of offering his explanations after a Draft Charge sheet had been given to him and then to take a final decision about initiation of disciplinary proceeding. The Council decided that the Governing Body of Heramba Chandra College should be advised to give Dr. Chowdhury an opportunity of offering his explanations after a Draft Charge sheet had been given to him and then to take a final decision about initiation of disciplinary proceeding. The Governing Body of the Society further resolved that a report thereafter ought to be sent to the Council. While the matter was pending for further steps, on 14th of December a letter was received from the Pro-Vice Chancellor for the Academic Affairs of the University of Calcutta wherefrom it appeared that Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury had addressed a letter to the Inspector of Colleges and to the Secretary of the Under-Graduate Council, University of Calcutta, requesting them to look into certain irregularities in the affairs of the Heramba Chandra College. The Pro-Vice Chancellor by the above-noted letter requested the then Chairman of the Governing Body of the College so as not to take any step or action against the Principal until after an inspection by the University Inspection Team had taken place. By a letter dated 23rd December, 1985, the Governing Body requested the University of Calcutta not to stand in the way at the stage of drawing a proposed charge sheet against Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury and a request was made for withdrawal of the letter dated 13th December, 1985. Incidentally, it is to be noted that immediately after coming to know of the letter from the Principal of the College to the University Authority as noted above, the Governing Body insisted on having a copy of the letter from the Principal of the College and eventually the letter was sent to the Governing Body after 28th of December, 1985. 8. Subsequently all Inspection Team from the University of Calcutta including Inspector of Colleges visited the college on 19th February, 1986 and various interviews were had on the said date. The next visit of the Inspection Team was on 13th of March, 1986. 8. Subsequently all Inspection Team from the University of Calcutta including Inspector of Colleges visited the college on 19th February, 1986 and various interviews were had on the said date. The next visit of the Inspection Team was on 13th of March, 1986. During, this interregnum between the first visit and the second visit, it came to light that the Principal has filed a suit against the college authority in the Alipore Civil Court by reason whereof a protest was raised by the members of the Governing Body on the direction for production of the cash book and other registers and records before them to the effect that the matter is sub-judice and pending adjudication in a Court of Law, but the inspection, however, continued. 9. A definite case has been made out by the petitioners that the visit of the Inspection Team for the second time in March, 1985 was at the instance of the Principal and the Principal as a matter of fact accompanied the Inspection Team to the College though the Principal was not attending the College for some time past. The Governing Body however, on 23rd March, 1986 unanimously resolved that Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury be placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding to be taken against him and the resolution was also approved by the Council of the Brahmo Samaj Education Society and the Council at its meeting on 12th April, 1986 appointed Prof. Ashoke Mukherjee being the Head of the Department of the English as the Teacher-in-Charge of the College against the vacancy in the post of Principal created by reason of the suspension of Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury. A copy of the resolution containing the order of suspension, however, was sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta. 10. By a letter dated 24th March, 1986, the Inspector of Colleges informed the Chairman of the Governing Body of Heramba Chandra College that the Inspection Team would be visiting the College on 3rd April, 1986 and the College Authorities were informed by that letter that the inspection was being conducted under Ordinance 68 of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979. By a letter dated 24th March, 1986, the Inspector of Colleges informed the Chairman of the Governing Body of Heramba Chandra College that the Inspection Team would be visiting the College on 3rd April, 1986 and the College Authorities were informed by that letter that the inspection was being conducted under Ordinance 68 of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979. In reply to the letter dated 25th March, 1986 the Teacher-in-Charge of the College informed the Inspector of Colleges that since the College Building has already been requisitioned for the Higher Secondary Examination on and from 2nd April, 1986 to 22nd April, 1986, it would not be possible for him to entertain the Inspection Team. It is to be noted here, however, that in fact, there was no examination to be held on 3rd April, 1986. On 1st April, 1986 the Inspector of Colleges, however, sent another letter recording therein reluctance of the college authorities to face the members of the Inspection Team since there was no examination scheduled to be held on 3rd April, 1986. On the following day, the Inspector of Colleges issued a notice to the Chairman of the Governing Body of the College to show cause why the Governing Body of the college should not be dissolved and the Management be not taken over by an ad hoc Governing Body under Ordinance 64 of the Calcutta University First Ordinance, 1979. In the notice, it has been mentioned that due to agitation launched by a section of students of the college leading to intimidation Gherao and assault on the Principal, complete dead-lock has occured in the academic and administrative set up of the Institution and because of such dead-lock condition, classes were not held regularly and proper standards of teaching, training and instructions were not being maintained and the affairs of the college have been managed improperly and to the detriment to the interest of the Institution and the academic set up. It was further pointed out that the Directive of the Under-Graduate Council as communicated to the college in the letter dated 13th December, 1985 has been violated. The college authorities replied to the aforesaid show came notice by a letter dated 9th April, 1986 and obviously denying the allegations contained therein. It was further pointed out that the Directive of the Under-Graduate Council as communicated to the college in the letter dated 13th December, 1985 has been violated. The college authorities replied to the aforesaid show came notice by a letter dated 9th April, 1986 and obviously denying the allegations contained therein. In the reply to the show cause notice, however, it has been specifically mentioned that inspite of the difficulties caused by the acts of commission and omission on the part of Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury and consequent discontentment among the general body of teachers and students, it has still been possible to maintain the academic and administrative standards of the college and to hold classes regularly including conduct of Public examination and college examinations and to send up the candidates for University and Higher Secondary Counsel Examinations. The authority of the Pro-Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs to interfere with the initiation or confirmation of the disciplinary proceeding by the Governing Body of a College against the Principal or any of the teachers or any of the employees of the college or to direct the postponment of such disciplinary proceedings was also disputed. Subsequently, the Syndicate of the University had taken a decision on 29th April, 1986 to dissolve the Governing Body of Heramba a Chandra College and appointed Sri Arun Mitra, an Advocate, as the Administrator of the College. 11. It is this appointment of the Administrator which is under challenge in this writ application. 12 This verbos reproduction of facts could have been avoided but by reason of the submissions of the petitioner that it is only at the instance and machination of Dr. Subodh Chandra Chowdhury, the principal, the supersession had taken place, the reproduction became imperative. 13. Mr. Dipankar Gupta appearing for the petitioners strongly criticised the action of the respondent-University in the matter of appointment of the Administrator and submitted that it is only to protect the misdeeds and omissions and commissions of the Principal of the College that the Governing Body has been superseded. There were no materials, Mr. Gupta submitted, before the University Authority on the basis of which, the show cause notice or the subsequent supression order could be passed since the inspection even was not complete. Mr. There were no materials, Mr. Gupta submitted, before the University Authority on the basis of which, the show cause notice or the subsequent supression order could be passed since the inspection even was not complete. Mr. Gupta submitted that, there must be cogent reasons for interference with the administration of an Educational Institution without which the Governing Body ought not to be superseded. He drew particular attention to the show cause notice wherein a specific charge has been levelled that a direction of the Pro-Vice Chancellor was not complied with. The only direction in the letter dated 13th December, 1985 was to be effect of giving a protection to the Principal and non-compliance thereof, it was submitted has infuriated the Pro-Vice Chancellor and as an aftermath the supersession of the Governing Body and the appointment of the Administrator had taken place. 14. I find some justification in such a submission of Mr. Gupta, Analysing facts from the narration above, there cannot be any manner of doubt that there was no instant application of mind in regard to the deteriorating educational set up in the college what are the materials on which the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University would come to such a finding or form such, an opinion ? Nothing has been disclosed before this Court as, to the circumstances leading to such a drastic step to be taken by the University. The filing of suit by the Principal against the college authorities is also to be noted in this context. The Principal of the college, against whom a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated, take, Shelter under the law of the land and applies for an interim injunction. The Civil Court, however, does not grant such an injunction and immediately thereafter, the notice of the Pro-Vice Chancellor with a request not to initiate any disciplinary proceeding comes forward does it be speak of an independent enquiry an independent application of mind, an independent opinion or the other way round viz., having failed to gain the desired objective, protection have been sought for from the Pro-Vice Chancellor, who in turn obliges the person concerned by issuing a letter of request to the college so as to afford protection to the Principal. But by reason of the failure to afford protection since the order of suspension had already been passed against the Principal, the Pro-Vice Chancellor thought it fit to put an end to the episode so as to afford a complete relief to the person who sought for his help and protection. Strenuous submissions have been made by Mr. Standing Counsel as also by Mr. Sarkar appearing for the Principal of the College that the resolution to supersede the Governing Body is not the brain child of the Pro-Vice Chancellor, but a decision of the Syndicate. I do not wish to go into detail on to this aspect of the matter. Suffice it to say that the fact remains that an order of supersession was obtained from the Syndicate. 15. In this context reference to the provisions of the West Bengal Teachers' Security of Service Act, 1975 ought also to be noted. Section 11 of the Act of 1975 provides that the Governing Body of a college may place a teacher under suspension provided however every order of suspension shall be communicated to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to which the college is affiliated within a fortnight from the date of such order. Section 12 provides that the teacher against whom an order imposing any of the penalties referred in section 91 has been passed may prefer an appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of such an order to the university to which the college is affiliated. Section 2(9) of the 1975 Act defines 'teacher' and includes its Principal and Vice-Principal. 16. Relying upon the aforesaid provision of the Act of 1975 Mr. Gupta submitted that the principal's interest has been amply protected under the Act and the principal instead of adopting the procedure which the law enjoins has adopted a procedure for redressal of his grievances which is unknown to law and contrary to all known methods of redressal of grievances of a teacher within the meaning of the Act, 1975. The principal, Mr. Gupta submitted, in fact apart from filing a suit in the Civil Court and having failed to gain the objective, did adopt a method which does not benefit the educationist who has been placed in charge of an institution like that of a Heramba Chandra College. The principal, Mr. Gupta submitted, in fact apart from filing a suit in the Civil Court and having failed to gain the objective, did adopt a method which does not benefit the educationist who has been placed in charge of an institution like that of a Heramba Chandra College. It was further submitted that the university being a creature of statute ought to have acted in a manner as laid down in the statute and not dehorse the same. The Provisions of the Act of 1975 ought not to have been ignored by the University or the Syndicate. 17. Another aspect of the matter in this context ought also to be noted with some significance. Assuming that there was a wrongful refusal on the part of a college authority to offer inspection but that does not mean an imply that the university would postpone the inspection for all times to come as appears from the letter dated 1st April, 1986 as also from the subsequent state of facts. Obviously the refusal on the part of the college to allow inspection did not at all matter for the councill for under graduate studies to recommend to the Syndicate to dissolve the Governing Body of the college. From the records it appears that such a recommendation was made and the show cause notice was issued only because of the facts that certain students launched gherao and assaulted the principal by reason wherefor a complete dead-lock has occured in the academics and administrative set up of the Institution. Nothing appears from records wherefrom it can be stated that the refusal to allow inspection on 3rd April, 1986 has been the predominant facts in the matter of passing of the resolution of the Syndicate on 29th April, 1986 superseeding the Governing Body of the college and appointing Sri Arun Kumar Mitra, an Advocate of the Calcutta High Court as an Administrator to take temporary charge and management of the college. Can it be said that simply because of the fact that a section of students launched an agitation against the principal, the Governing Body ought to be dissolved and an Administrator be appointed. This aspect of the matter however ought to be dealt with in reference to the facts subsequent to such dissolution. Can it be said that simply because of the fact that a section of students launched an agitation against the principal, the Governing Body ought to be dissolved and an Administrator be appointed. This aspect of the matter however ought to be dealt with in reference to the facts subsequent to such dissolution. The Syndicate passed the resolution on 29th April, 1986 appointing Sri Arun Kumar Mitra, an advocate of this Court to act as an Administrator and to take over the management of the college. Under what circumstances an advocate of this Court was appointed by the University authority and not an educationist, has not been made known to this Court inspite of requests. The Advocate-Administrator however, as appears from the letter dated 7th May, 1986 addressed to the Inspector of the Colleges, takes charge of the management of the college on 30th April, 1986 at 9-30 A. M. and he found that the college was running without the principal and on ascertaining that facts, he came to know that the principal was suspended and immediately thereafter a representation was submitted to the Administrator by the principal with certain documents and on perusal of the same the letter was reinstated from 10 A. M. of 30th April, 1986. The sequence of the events therefore runs with extreme haste in the matter of putting back the principal who was suspended by the Governing Body to take charge of the administration once again. Let us not however forget that the reason for supersession being agitation of a section of students against the principal which has created a dead-lock in the college the question obviously arises as to whether supersession of the Governing Body and consequent appointment of an Administrator who in turn within half an hour brings back the principal against whom there was some agitation by a section of students can be said to be in the interests of academics can it be said that the university has acted in a manner to preserve the educational atmosphere clean in my view the answer ought to be in the negative. It is simply set up to put the clock backwards so as to give shelter to a suspended teacher. Incidentally no further inspection had taken place since then obviously the purpose has been achieved and further inspection not required. It is simply set up to put the clock backwards so as to give shelter to a suspended teacher. Incidentally no further inspection had taken place since then obviously the purpose has been achieved and further inspection not required. This Court requested the administrator to appear who happen to be a junior advocate of this Court and on being asked as to the circumstances of reinstating the principal of the college, the Administrator submitted that on perusal of the charge sheet and the reply he thought it fit to bring back the principal immediately. Significantly that the administrator did not think it fit and proper even to call for the records from the Governing Body or to hear the Governing Body which has issued the order of suspension neither the administrator thought it fit to talk to the students or the other teacher of the college when the only grievance of the university was the agitation of a section of students. I am at a loss to find as to how the administrator could act with such a hot haste and in this context Mr. Gupta's criticism about the whole affairs seems to have some justification. As a matter of fact the administrator as noted above did put back the clock and placed the college exactly in the same position as it was before the supersession of the Governing Body of the college does it subserve the interest of the college for which the Governing Body was superseded the answer obviously would be a 'No'. 18. Mr. M. B. Sarkar appearing for the principal of the college apart from raising certain technical please submitted that no relief has been claimed against the principal and as such the Court has not been called upon to adjudicate in regard to suspension and resumption of duty as a principal of the college. I am however unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sarkar. The Principal was suspended by the Governing Body but the administrator has directed the principal to join the college with effect from 30th April, 1986. The appointment of the administrator is itself under challenge and if the appointment is declared invalid or of no effect the actions of the administrator in turn therefore can not also be declared in that event valid. 19. The appointment of the administrator is itself under challenge and if the appointment is declared invalid or of no effect the actions of the administrator in turn therefore can not also be declared in that event valid. 19. As regards the technicalities I am afraid I can not lend my support to the contentions of Mr. Sarkar moreso by reason of detailed submission made on the merits by all the parties appearing. It is to be noted that strict rules of pleading ought not to be enforced in a writ proceedings as is done in civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code. Technicalities in a writ proceedings can not out-weigh the cause of justice or the interest of justice. In that view of this matter technical please also fail. 20. In the premises, I am of the view that the action of supersession of the Governing Body and the subsequent appointment of the administrator to take over the management of the college is not in accordance with law and for reasons which are wholly extraneous to the entire academic interest of any educational institution. 21. In the view I have taken, I need not have proceeded with the matter any further, but since detailed submissions have been made on behalf of the parties as regards the question of Calcutta University Ordinance, 1979, judicial decorum prompted me to deal with the same. 22. Paragraph 64 of the 1979 Ordinance has been taken recourse to by the learned Standing Council and in particular sub-paragraph (2) thereof. In order to appreciate the contention it would be worthwhile to set out paragraphs 64(1), (2) and (3) in extenso :– "64. 22. Paragraph 64 of the 1979 Ordinance has been taken recourse to by the learned Standing Council and in particular sub-paragraph (2) thereof. In order to appreciate the contention it would be worthwhile to set out paragraphs 64(1), (2) and (3) in extenso :– "64. If at any time the Syndicate is satisfied after considering the recommendation of relevant council for undergraduate studies in respect of any college or institution by enquiries made in this behalf or otherwise that– a) proper standards of teaching, training or instruction are not being maintained therein ; or b) the affairs of the college or institution are being managed improperly and to the detriment of the college or institution as an educational-institution, the Syndicate may issue to the Governing Body of the college or institution such directions as it may think fit, including directions for reconstitution of the Governing Body of the college or institution, appointment of properly qualified teaching staff, removal of under-qualified teachers, improvement of libraries or laboratories or proper provision for students residence, health and discipline, specifying the period within which such directions are to be complied with. 2) If any direction of the Council for under-graduate studies concerned issued under paragraph (1) are not complied with within the specified period, the Syndicate may call upon the Governing Body of the college or institution on whom such directions were issued to show cause on or before such date as the Syndicate may specify why the Governing Body should not be dissolved and the management of the college or institution taken over by the University. 3) If, after considering the cause, if any, shown by the Governing Body of the college or institution under paragraph (2) the Syndicate thinks fit so to do, it may, by order, temporarily take over the management of the college or institution and for that purpose appointment administrator or an ad hoc Governing Body consisting of such a number of members as it may deem fit." 23. On a plain reading of paragraph 64 of the 1979 Ordinance, in particular, sub-paragraph (1) it appears that the satisfaction required thereunder is that of Syndicate on the basis of the recommendation of the relevant Council for under-graduate studies, whereas paragraph 64(2) speaks of direction of the Council for under-graduate studies issued under paragraph 1. In my view, there is apparent inconsistency between the two provisions viz., 64(1) and 64(2). In my view, there is apparent inconsistency between the two provisions viz., 64(1) and 64(2). As such, the language of sub-paragraph (2) cannot be, in my view, given effect to. Paragraph 64(2) categorically points out that in the event noncompliance of the direction of the Council for under-graduate studies, the Syndicate may call upon the Governing Body to show cause why such Governing Body should not be dissolved and the management of the college be taken over by the University. Chapter IX of the Ordinance contains paragraphs 63 and 64, but does not refer to the authority and jurisdiction of the under-graduate Council to issue any direction. At least paragraph 64(1) does not envisage such a direction. This Court has not been called upon to adjudicate the validity of the statute or in particular paragraph 64(2) of the Ordinance of 1979 as such I am not expressing any opinion suffice it to say that Mr. Gupta's contention is based on substantial reasonings. 24. In fine therefore, the writ petition succeeds. The decision of the University regarding the resolution of the Governing Body of Heramba Chandra College is set aside and quashed. The action of the University in regard to the appointment of the Administrator is declared to be illegal and contrary to law and as such every action taken by the Administrator excepting concerning the appearances of students of the relevant examinations and ether incidental matters in regard thereto or deposit of money, is set aside and quashed. The status quo as of 29th of April, 1986 is restored. The Governing Body of the college would be at liberty to continue with the disciplinary proceedings against the Principal of the College in accordance with law. But till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, no other principal be appointed by the college and the day-to-day administration be run by the senior-most teacher as the Teacher-in-Charge and the extra remuneration as is admissible under the law be made available to the Teacher-in-Charge for undertaking the additional responsibility. The Principal under suspension and facing the disciplinary proceeding shall be entitled to receive the Suspension Allowance as is admissible under the law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.