Court sets aside termination, orders payment of Rs. 50,00,000 in Writ Petition emphasizing statutory obligations.

The court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the termination order dated 12.10.2004, and directed the fourth respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner. The court emphasized the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 due to the statutory obligations imposed on the minority institution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a minority private institution.
2. Whether the order dated 12.10.2004 is an order imposing punishment within the ambit of Section 63 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.
3. Whether the appointment of the petitioner as Principal can be treated as an appointment on deputation for a period of five years.
4. Whether the termination of the petitioner from the post of Principal was contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1985 and the Statutes framed thereunder.
5. Reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. (I) - Maintainability
The court examined whether a Writ Petition is maintainable against a minority institution affiliated to the University and receiving government aid. The court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Madhavan Pillai v. Balan and others and the Supreme Court judgments in Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani and Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab. The court held that a Writ Petition is maintainable if there is a violation of statutory obligations. The court concluded that the fourth respondent College is obliged to carry out its functions as per statutory obligations imposed by the Act, 1985 and the Statutes framed thereunder, thus making the Writ Petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue Nos. (II), (III), and (IV) - Nature of Appointment and Termination
The court considered the nature of the petitioner's appointment and the validity of the termination order dated 12.10.2004. The petitioner was appointed as Principal through direct recruitment after following due procedure, not on deputation. The court noted that the appointment was approved by the University without any limitation of tenure. The court found that the termination order treated the petitioner's appointment as deputation, which was incorrect and beyond the jurisdiction of the management. The management could have taken disciplinary action in accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 1985 but not in the manner it did. The court held the order dated 12.10.2004 as unsustainable and set it aside.

Issue No. (V) - Reliefs
The court addressed the reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled. Considering the petitioner's upcoming superannuation and the fact that he was out of employment for a substantial period, the court decided against reinstatement. Instead, the court directed the fourth respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner in lieu of salary which he could have received had he not been terminated from service. This payment was to be made within three months from the date of the judgment.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the termination order dated 12.10.2004, and directed the fourth respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,00,000 to the petitioner. The court emphasized the maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 due to the statutory obligations imposed on the minority institution.

---