Chancellor's Limit on Statute Review & Vice-Chancellor's Procedural Role

The Supreme Court held that the Chancellor cannot consider the validity of a statute, as judicial review of constitutionality is within the purview of superior courts. The Vice-Chancellor's power to regulate procedural compliance does not extend to approving decisions of minority institutions. While alternative remedies are preferred, they do not bar writ jurisdiction in cases of natural justice violations or jurisdictional errors. The High Court should have considered the merits of the case, leading to the Supreme Court setting aside the High Court's order and remanding the matter for further consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 07th/12th July 2006.
3. Availability and efficacy of alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973:
The appellants challenged the constitutionality of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The provision mandates that any decision to dismiss or remove a teacher must be reported to the Vice-Chancellor and requires his approval unless it pertains to a minority institution. The proviso allows the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that the prescribed procedure has been followed. The Supreme Court noted that the Chancellor of the University, being a creature of the statute, cannot consider the validity of the statute. The power of judicial review regarding the constitutionality of a statute is vested in superior courts, not statutory authorities.

2. Validity of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor dated 07th/12th July 2006:
The Vice-Chancellor refused to approve the Managing Committee's decision to remove the Principal, citing procedural non-compliance. The appellants contended that the Vice-Chancellor's order was not in accordance with the procedures established by the governing body and violated the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Act. The Supreme Court observed that the Vice-Chancellor's regulatory power is permissible under law to ensure procedural compliance but does not extend to granting prior approval for decisions made by minority institutions.

3. Availability and efficacy of alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act, which allows for a reference to the Chancellor. The appellants argued that this remedy was not efficacious. The Supreme Court held that while alternative remedies are generally preferred, they are not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially in cases involving violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to the vires of an Act. The Court emphasized that the Chancellor's power is limited to ensuring conformity with the Act and does not extend to adjudicating intricate questions of law or jurisdictional errors.

4. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for refusing to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction solely on the ground of the existence of an alternative remedy. The Court highlighted that the High Court should have considered the merits of the case, especially given the appellants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statutory provisions and allegations of jurisdictional errors by the Vice-Chancellor. The Court cited precedents where the availability of an alternative remedy did not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction in cases involving fundamental rights, violations of natural justice, or lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits. The Court emphasized the necessity for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction in cases involving significant legal questions and procedural irregularities, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court was requested to consider the matter on its merits.

---