AT CHANDIGARH v. The Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala & Ors.

.......Respondent nos. 1 to 4 through Nemo. Respondent nos. 5 & 6 through Ms.Balwinder Kaur, Advocate for Shri J.S.Toor, Advocate. Date of Decision: 1.7.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER ....

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 -2- .... Mahesh Grover,J. This judgment will dispose of the above mentioned two writ petition as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. The petitioners in C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 are teachers in Punjabi University Guru Kashi College, Damdama Sahib, whereas the petitioners in C.W.P.No.14177 of 2002 are teachers in Punjabi University College of Education, Bathinda. They have sought quashing of the orders passed by the Returning Officer appointed for conducting elections to the governing body of the Punjabi University Teachers Association (for short, `PUTA') whereby the teachers of the aforesaid colleges have been disallowed to participate in the said elections. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for directing the respondents to allow the teachers of these colleges to take part in the elections to be held to the PUTA on 6.9.2002 while treating them as members thereof. The grievance of the petitioners stems from the fact that they have not been treated as members of the PUTA and have been disentitled to vote in the elections which are being conducted to elect its governing body. The petitioners claim that they are teachers in the colleges which are being run under the control of the Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter described as `the University') and, therefore, are eligible to participate in the elections to the governing body of the PUTA which is a statutory body contemplated by the Punjabi University Calender, Volume-II, Part-II, 1994. In their written statements filed separately to the writ petitions, the University and its functionaries have denied the right of the petitioners C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 -3- .... to be the members of the PUTA. It has been pleaded that they cannot be treated to be the members of the teaching fraternity of the University for being eligible to be the members of PUTA even though they are teachers in the colleges. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined the controversy at hand. The grievance of the petitioners as highlighted in C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 is two-fold. The first portion thereof is directed against Annexure P1 whereby the college in which they are employed has been declared as a constituent college of the University. In so far as this grievance is concerned, the locus of the petitioners to question Annexure P1 on that account is seriously in doubt. The petitioners are merely teachers in the college and have nothing to do with its management. They being the employees cannot assail the decision of the University to treat the college as a constituent college unless they show that some serious prejudice has been caused to their services by that decision. That is not the case of the petitioners. It may be mentioned here that Guru Kashi College, Damdama Sahib was established in the year 1964 by the Sikh Educational Society. In the year 1988, a part of the land and building of the said college was given to the University for setting up its regional centre . On 20.12.1995, the entire college with its assets, liabilities and the staff etc. was taken over by the University and on that extended logic, the petitioners are claiming that they are employees of the University. But, that is not the case. Although C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 -4- .... the college with its assets, liabilities and staff was taken over by the University, but by no stretch of imagination, they can be treated as teachers appointed on its establishment. This claim of the petitioners can only be said to be imaginary and the denial of the membership of the PUTA is seemingly justified. The membership of the PUTA has been defined in Clause III (a) and (b) of its constitution. The same reads as under:- “III Membership. (a) The membership of the Association shall be open to the whole time teachers of the University. (b) Every member shall pay initial enrolment fee of Rs.1/- and annual subscription for each financial year at the rate of Rs.5/-.” Section 2(e) of the Punjabi University Act,1961 defines the University to mean the Punjabi University as incorporated in the said Act. Section 2(e) of the ibid Act is reproduced below:- “2(e) “University” means the Punjabi University as incorporated under this Act.” These two definitions when read together clearly carve out the fact that the University is distinct from its constituent colleges. The words “constituent college” themselves connote that the University is the umbrella organisation of which various colleges in the State may be its constituents to enjoy some of the privileges, but in no case such privileges can render the faculty of these colleges to be its teachers. They by virtue of their employment would continue to serve the colleges and would remain C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 -5- .... employees of such college. Therefore, the plea of the petitioners that since Guru Kashi College, Damdma Sahib has been treated as constituent college of the University, the teachers employed therein should be treated as members of the PUTA is founded on an erroneous assumption. Learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 has made an attempt to justify his contention by extended logic to say that the University and its syndicate has complete control over the affairs of the college in which the petitioners are employed and, therefore, it should be sufficient to make them eligible to participate in the elections to the PUTA, but that contention is totally fallacious for the reasons which have been detailed above. Even otherwise, in the written statement of the University and its functionaries, it has been succinctly pointed out that through a circular dated 9.8.2002, a proposal was made to delete the names of the petitioners from the voters' list which was circulated and the objections were invited,but they did not respond and ultimately, on 24.8.2002, their names were removed therefrom in the absence of any objection from them. It has further been stated that the returning officer had included the names of the petitioners in the voters' list vide order dated 6.8.2001 and on being pointed out the mistake, the same very returning officer deleted their names. On the same ana-logy, the petitioners in C.W.P.No.14177 of 2002 cannot be treated to be the teachers of the University. No doubt, the college in which the petitioners are working was established by the University, but they cannot be treated to be the teachers appointed on its C.W.P.No.14101 of 2002 -6- .... establishment in view of the discussion made hereinabove. Resultantly, both the petitions are held to be without any merit and are dismissed. July 01,2010 “SCM” ( Mahesh Grover ) Judge