Certiorari limits on writ review prevent factual reappreciation; reinstatement restored, while arrears were remitted for fresh decision.

In writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view for an administrative inference on the voluntariness of a resignation; certiorari is confined to jurisdictional error, error apparent on the face of the record, or comparable legal infirmity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded those limits by treating the matter as a factual appeal and quashing the Government's conclusion. The reinstatement of the teacher was therefore restored, while the question of arrears of pay and allowances was remitted to the Government for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could reappreciate the facts and substitute its own view on the voluntariness of the resignation instead of confining itself to jurisdictional error or manifest legal infirmity; (ii) whether the order restoring the teacher to service should be maintained and the question of arrears of pay and allowances remitted for fresh decision after hearing the parties.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could reappreciate the facts and substitute its own view on the voluntariness of the resignation instead of confining itself to jurisdictional error or manifest legal infirmity.

Analysis: The appellate authority under section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 was entitled to assess the surrounding circumstances and draw its own inference on whether the resignation was voluntary. The High Court exceeded the limits of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by treating the matter as an appeal on facts and by reassessing the evidentiary basis of the Government's conclusion. Certiorari does not permit a rehearing on merits, and it is confined to jurisdictional error, error apparent on the face of the record, or similar legal infirmity. The High Court therefore adopted the wrong perspective in interfering with the factual inference reached by the Government.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the Government's order on the ground that the resignation was voluntary.

Issue (ii): Whether the order restoring the teacher to service should be maintained and the question of arrears of pay and allowances remitted for fresh decision after hearing the parties.

Analysis: The Government's decision under section 39(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 suffered from want of opportunity to the respondent, so the matter of back wages could not be finally determined without affording both sides a hearing. At the same time, a remand on the central dispute would serve no useful purpose, as the circumstances did not justify dismissal and reinstatement was the appropriate relief. The statutory power to make such order as is just and equitable was broad enough to include a direction regarding back wages, but the absence of a complete record on that aspect required further consideration by the Government.

Conclusion: The order of reinstatement was restored and the issue of arrears of pay and allowances was remitted to the Government for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the main controversy, the reinstatement order stood revived, and only the ancillary question of monetary relief was sent back for reconsideration after hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, a court cannot convert certiorari into an appellate review on facts; where an administrative finding is within jurisdiction and based on material on record, interference is confined to jurisdictional or legal error, not mere disagreement with the factual inference.

---