Limited tribunal jurisdiction in university affiliation disputes leaves employees' termination appeals maintainable when affiliation exists.
The Bombay High Court note states that the University and College Tribunal under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 can examine only the jurisdictional fact of whether an institution is affiliated or recognised, but cannot inquire into the legality or validity of affiliation itself. Questions on grant or withdrawal of affiliation remain within the University's statutory domain. It further states that where the college was in fact affiliated and had NCTE recognition for the relevant year, the employees' termination appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal, and the dispute had to be decided on merits within its limited jurisdiction.
Issues: (i) Whether the University and College Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 to examine the legality of the college's affiliation while considering employees' appeals against termination. (ii) Whether the existence of affiliation, together with the recognition under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, rendered the employees' appeals maintainable before the Tribunal.
Issue (i): Whether the University and College Tribunal had jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 to examine the legality of the college's affiliation while considering employees' appeals against termination.
Analysis: The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 58 to 61 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 is confined to disputes by employees of affiliated colleges or recognized institutions arising from dismissal, removal, termination of service, or reduction in rank. The Tribunal may verify the jurisdictional fact whether the institution is affiliated, but it cannot enlarge its statutory mandate by inquiring into the legality, validity, or procedural correctness of the affiliation itself. Questions concerning grant or withdrawal of affiliation fall within the University's statutory powers under the affiliation provisions of the Act. A special tribunal cannot travel beyond the limits created by the statute that constitutes it.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the legality or illegality of the college's affiliation, and its dismissal of the appeals on that ground was beyond jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): Whether the existence of affiliation, together with the recognition under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, rendered the employees' appeals maintainable before the Tribunal.
Analysis: The record showed that the college was affiliated to the University and that such affiliation had not been withdrawn. It also showed recognition from the NCTE authorities for the relevant academic year. Section 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 regulates grant of affiliation to teacher-education institutions, while Section 17(4) deals with the consequences of non-recognition. Those provisions do not make the affiliation issue a ground for the Tribunal to reject employees' service appeals under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Once affiliation existed, the jurisdictional precondition for entertaining the employees' appeals was satisfied.
Conclusion: The employees' appeals were maintainable before the Tribunal, and the matter had to be decided on merits.
Final Conclusion: The impugned dismissal was set aside and the appeals were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits within its statutory jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction may determine only the jurisdictional facts necessary to assume jurisdiction, but it cannot examine the legality of matters outside the substantive issues specifically entrusted to it by the statute.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
