Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Shailaja Wadikar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 26.8.2012 passed by the Chancellor (Respondent No.1) under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The petitioner had applied for the post of Associate Professor in English at Swamy Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Nanded, but the appointment was made in favor of Respondent No.4, Dr. Bhagwan Jadhav. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition before the Chancellor, who dismissed it holding that there was no justification to interfere with the university's decision. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main legal issue was whether the Chancellor could re-appreciate evidence and substitute his opinion for that of the university authorities. The High Court held that the Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) is limited to examining perversity or arbitrariness, not to act as an appellate authority. The court further held that its own writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the Chancellor's order unless it suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity. Finding no such error, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Chancellor's order and the appointment of Respondent No.4.
Headnote
A) University Law - Appointment of Associate Professor - Section 76(7) of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Scope of Chancellor's Power - The Chancellor, while hearing a petition under Section 76(7), cannot act as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence; the power is limited to examining whether the decision of the university authorities is perverse, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory provisions. The Chancellor's order dismissing the petition was upheld as no interference was warranted. (Paras 3-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Scope of Judicial Review - The High Court, in a writ petition challenging the Chancellor's order, does not sit in appeal over the Chancellor's decision; it only examines whether the Chancellor's order suffers from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice. The petition was dismissed as the Chancellor's order was found to be within the bounds of his jurisdiction. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chancellor, while exercising powers under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, can re-appreciate the evidence and substitute his own opinion over that of the university authorities in the matter of appointment of an Associate Professor.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Chancellor's order dated 26.8.2012 and the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Associate Professor in English.
Law Points
- Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) of Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 is limited to examining whether the decision of university authorities is perverse or arbitrary
- not to re-appreciate evidence
- High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to sit in appeal over the Chancellor's order unless it suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity.
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 20
Writ Petition No.9639 of 2012
Mr. S.M. Kulkarni for Petitioner; Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior counsel i/by Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for Respondent No.1; Mr. S.K. Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2; Mr. U.S. Malte for Respondent No.3; Mr. Rajendra Dasalkar for Respondent No.4
Dr. Shailaja D/o Bhujangrao Wadikar
The Hon'ble Chancellor, Raj Bhavan, Mumbai; The State of Maharashtra; Swamy Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University; Dr. Bhagwan S/o Sheshrao Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Chancellor under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Associate Professor in English.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Chancellor's order dated 26.8.2012 and a direction to set aside the appointment of Respondent No.4.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the appointment of Respondent No.4 to the post of Associate Professor in English, claiming that the Chancellor erred in not interfering with the university's decision.
Previous Decisions
The Chancellor, by order dated 26.8.2012, dismissed the petitioner's petition under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, holding that there was no justification to interfere with the decision of the university authorities.
Issues
Whether the Chancellor, while exercising powers under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, can re-appreciate the evidence and substitute his own opinion over that of the university authorities in the matter of appointment of an Associate Professor.
Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, can interfere with the Chancellor's order if it does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Chancellor ought to have re-appreciated the evidence and found that the appointment of Respondent No.4 was not justified.
The respondents contended that the Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) is limited and he correctly declined to interfere as the university's decision was not perverse or arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi
The Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is not appellate in nature; it is limited to examining whether the decision of the university authorities is perverse, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory provisions. The High Court, under Article 226, does not sit in appeal over the Chancellor's order and will only interfere if the order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The Chancellor, while exercising powers under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, cannot act as an appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence.
The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, does not sit in appeal over the Chancellor's order and will only interfere if the order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or violation of natural justice.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 before the Chancellor challenging the appointment of Respondent No.4. The Chancellor dismissed the petition on 26.8.2012. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 10.6.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994: Section 76(7)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
