Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Vandana Khedikar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order/communication dated 12.03.2015 issued by the Chancellor of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (Respondent No.2). The Chancellor had refused to intervene and entertain her complaint under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 against the appointment of Respondent No.3, Dr. Muktadevi Mohite. The Deputy Secretary to the government communicated the decision stating that there was no justification to interfere with the University Authorities' decision regarding the selection and appointment. The petition was initially listed before a Division Bench on 02.03.2016 and later adjourned. On 11.03.2016, another Bench directed the Registry to verify whether the petition should be placed before a Single Judge. On 16.03.2016, the Registry pointed out that the challenge was covered under Rule 18(3) of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, and thus needed to be placed before a Single Judge. On 01.04.2016, the Single Judge issued notice. On 23.01.2017, another Single Judge directed the matter to be placed before a Division Bench to determine whether the impugned order was quasi-judicial in nature. The Division Bench, comprising B.P. Dharmadhikari and Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ., heard the matter. The court examined the nature of the Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) of the 1994 Act. It held that the Chancellor's power is administrative and not quasi-judicial because there is no lis between the parties and no duty to act judicially. The order refusing to intervene does not adjudicate any rights. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against such an administrative order. The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek remedy in a civil suit or other appropriate proceedings.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Quasi-Judicial Function - Distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial orders - The Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is administrative in nature as there is no lis between the parties and no duty to act judicially - The order refusing to intervene in a selection and appointment matter does not require adjudication of rights and hence is not quasi-judicial (Paras 1-10). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against an administrative order passed by the Chancellor under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - The remedy, if any, lies in a civil suit or other appropriate proceedings (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Chancellor under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is quasi-judicial in nature and therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Final Decision
The Division Bench held that the Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is administrative and not quasi-judicial. Consequently, the writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to seek remedy in a civil suit or other appropriate proceedings.
Law Points
- Chancellor's power under Section 76(7) of Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 is administrative
- not quasi-judicial
- No duty to act judicially
- No lis between parties
- Writ petition not maintainable against administrative order
