Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani and Ors.

Facts

Appellant No. 1, a public trust, and its trustees ran a science college in Ahmedabad with permanent affiliation to Gujarat University since June 15, 1973, under the Gujarat University Act, 1949. Teachers at the college were paid per University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales. A dispute arose over pay scales between the University and the University Area Teachers Association, which was referred to the Chancellor. On June 12, 1970, the Chancellor issued an award directing pay revisions for pre- and post-April 1966 teachers, merging dearness allowance with salaries from April 1, 1971, and paying arrears in installments.

The State Government and University accepted the award and directed affiliated colleges to implement it. However, the appellants terminated 11 teachers, citing surplus staff, and sought the University’s approval, which the Vice-Chancellor denied. Subsequently, the appellants unilaterally decided to close the college from June 15, 1975, terminating all staff without paying their terminal benefits.

The aggrieved staff petitioned the High Court, which directed the trust to pay terminal benefits under specified conditions. The trust appealed this decision, leading to the present case.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

Whether of the writ petition for mandamus as against the management of the college maintainable?

Holding

The Court held that mandamus cannot be issued for purely private rights or against private bodies with no public duties. However, when public funds aid a college, making its functions public in nature, mandamus may apply. Aided institutions, like government ones, perform public functions by imparting education, are regulated by affiliating universities, and their academic staff's service conditions carry a public character. Decisions by the University on pay scales bind the management, creating a legal right-duty relationship between staff and management, justifying mandamus.

While mandamus traditionally applies to public authorities created by statute, Article 226 of the Constitution allows High Courts to issue writs to "any person or authority" for enforcing fundamental rights or addressing injustices. This broad power enables judicial oversight over entities impacting public rights, ensuring flexibility to address varying circumstances. Mandamus must remain accessible to rectify injustice, unhindered by technicalities. The Court thus rejected the appellants' objection to the writ petition's maintainability.

The Court while dismissing the appeals directed the appellants to pay all the amounts due to the respondents as per the judgment of the High Court, The amount shall be paid with 12 per cent interest. The balance remaining shall be paid within two months from today. The appellants shall also pay the costs of the respondents teachers which we quantify at Rs. 20.000/-.

Final Decision Appeal Dismissed