2016(2) ALL MR 712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

A. P. BHANGALE, J.

Shri Shivaji Education Society & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Writ Petiton No.3683 of 2012

10th October, 2014.

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. K.H. DESHPANDE, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.V. PUROHIT
Respondent Counsel: Mr. ABHIJIT DESHPANDE, Smt. NEETA JOG, with Mr. S.S. SHINGANE

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act (1998), Ss.26, 53 - Grievance committee - Constitution to deal with grievance of teachers and other employees - Meeting of grievance committee should be held with prescribed quorum - Presiding officer ought to have awaited prescribed quorum to transact any business in meeting - Meeting was held without prescribed quorum - In absence of proper quorum, report of grievance committee along with resolution passed by Management Council, are set aside.

Section 53 of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act provides for mechanism of the Grievance Committee consisting of Chairperson, four members and the Registrar acting as Member-Secretary (without the right to vote), in the University to deal with the grievance of the teachers and other employees in the University College, educational institute affiliated and settle the grievance and report to Management Council.

If a college or joint act is required to be performed by definite statutory body alone, or by a definite body coupled with an indefinite body and follow up by the Management Council was required to be based upon the decision by the Grievance Committee, a majority of the voting members of the definite body forming " quorum" must be present where a Grievance Committee is required to be composed of several members the general rule is that a majority of them forming a quorum must be present at a meeting. [Para 8,18,21,22]

Cases Cited:
Karimkhan s/o. Sailanikhan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3233=2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 412 [Para 12]
SharadchandraVasant Chitnis Vs. Mrs. Neela Ashok Korde and Anr., 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 873 [Para 12]
Chaganlal Girdhari Kundkar Vs. Parmatma Ek Sewak Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur and Ors., 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 463 [Para 13]
Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (Southco) and Anr. Vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012 ALL SCR 1113=2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 536 (SC) [Para 13]
Seth Govindji Vs. Rao Saheb Jingonda Patil, WP No.501/2008, Dt.9/4/2008 [Para 14]
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narain & Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 58 [Para 15]
State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Dr.Mohanjit Singh and Anr., 1988 (Supp) SCC 562 [Para 16]
Jyoti Gautam Patil Vs. Presiding Officer for meeting convened for election of Sarpanch, Waigaon & Ors., 2001(1) ALL MR 472=2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 424 [Para 17]
Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors., 1975 (1) SCC 559 [Para 18]


JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioners herein challenge the report by the Grievance Committee, dt.8.11.2011 as also Resolution No. 20 of 2012, dt.2.3.2012 passed by the Management Council of respondent no.1/University and communication from the University dt.20.3.2012 issued by the Registrar of the University. The petitioners have prayed to confirm the order dt.11.1.2010 issued by the petitioner-institution against respondent no.3.

3. The facts, briefly stated, are thus :-

Petitioner-Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amravati - a registered Trust & Society, runs the Medical College by name Dr.Punjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College at Amravati and other educational Institution. Respondent no.1 is the University established under the provisions of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'MUHS Act'). Under Section 53 of the said Act, a Grievance Committee is constituted to deal with the grievances of the teachers and other employees of the University, Colleges, Institutions etc. and hear and settle the grievances. It consisted of the Pro Vice-Chancellor as Chairperson and four members from the Management Council and the Registrar as a Member- Secretary, who has no right to vote.

4. Respondent no.3 Dr. Padmakar Rambhau Somvanshi was appointed as a Reader by the Petitioner/Society in Dr.Punjabrao @ Bhausaheb Deshmukh Memorial Medical College, wherein he joined in the year 1987 and was appointed as a Professor of Medicine in the year 1988. He was then appointed as an Officiating Principal in the year 1994. That appointment was challenged by the Senior Professors in the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. In 1997, respondent no.3 was appointed as Dean, vide Order dt.26.9.1997. The appointment was challenged by Dr. Udhav Deshmukh and Dr.Vilekar by filing Writ Petition No.3774 of 1997. While respondent no.3 was working as a Dean in the Medical College run by the petitioner, there was a raid by the Income Tax Department which had found Rs.47,30,665/- cash in the safe of the College. Out of which, Rs 46,17,000/- was seized by the Income Tax Department as respondent no.3 could not show the record as to receipts about it. Respondent no.3, however, later gave the list of persons who had donated the sums. The petitioners alleged that respondent no.3 had collected the amount without issuing the receipts and was held responsible for the serious misconduct tarnishing the image of the College in the eyes of public. On 7.8.2007, respondent no.3 was asked to go on compulsory leave of three months. A Fact Finding Committee was appointed by the petitioner on 18.8.2007. It submitted the Report on 23.11.2007. An order of suspension was issued on 6.12.2007. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated. Charge sheet consisting 18 charges was issued on 6.12.2007. Respondent no.3 was found prima facie guilty of involvement in monetary illegalities and misappropriation of the amounts. Executive Committee approved the report of the Fact Finding Committee. On 26.9.2009, the Enquiry Committee submitted the report to the Petitioner/Society. It was placed for consideration before the Executive Committee which unanimously accepted the Report and authorised the President of the Society to take all further steps in the matter vide Resolution dt.19.11.2009. Minutes of the meeting were confirmed on 28.1.2010. Copy of that Enquiry Report was served upon respondent no.3 on 11.12.2009. Dismissal Order, dt.11.1.2010 was served upon respondent no.3 on 16.1.2010. Respondent no.3 filed appeal under Section 53 of the MUHS Act addressed to respondent no.2 Grievance Committee. The proceeding was heard on 17.4.2010. Respondent no.3 was directed to be reinstated by giving him all consequential benefits.

5. According to the petitioners, Dr.G.V. Patil, former Vice Chancellor, Amravati University had made a Complaint, dt. 10.4.2008 to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Drugs, Maharashtra State and alleged that a high level enquiry should be conducted in the Medical College as there was raid by the Income Tax Department and seizure of the unaccounted amount. The State Government, through the Under Secretary of the said Medical Education & Drugs Department, had directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to conduct enquiry and submit report to the Government. The University had appointed the Committee of three members to conduct the enquiry consisting of Dr.Uday Bodhankar, Dr A.N.Suryakar and Shri P. P. Palekar. Enquiry report dt.21.7.2009 was submitted by the said Committee. It observed about the financial irregularities and improper maintenance of the receipt book etc. Neither the Government nor the University took action upon the said report.

6. The question is as to whether the Grievance Committee was constituted contrary to law and whether its report could have been relied upon by the Management Council in the facts and circumstances of the case ? The contention of the petitioners is that the Grievance Committee was not constituted properly. Under Section 53 (3) of the MUHS Act, the Grievance Committee shall consist of Pro Vice-Chancellor as the Chairperson and four members of the Management Council nominated by the Management Council from amongst themselves and the Registrar as the Member Secretary. Registrar is not having right to vote. Thus, total six members are required to constitute the Grievance Committee. Dr. Shri Uday Bodhankar was Chairman and Dr. Shri A.N. Suryakar was member of the Committee formed by the Government which submitted its report. Dr. A.N. Suryakar as a Member-Secretary had no right to vote. The Grievance Committee held the meetings on 31.10.2011 and on 8.11.2011. On 31.10.2011, Dr. Uday Bodhankar and Dr. Mansingh Pawar were absent. On 8.11.2011, Dr.Gajanan Ekbote, Dr. Uday Bodhankar and Dr. Mansingh Pawar were absent. Thus, there was no proper constitution of Grievance Committee.

7. Furthermore, the quorum of the meeting of Management Council was also incomplete and not as per S. 26 (4) of the MUHS Act. Dr. S.D. Salvi and Dr.Mansingh Pawar were also members of the Grievance Committee whose report was to be re-considered by the Management Council. Thus, it is contended that the findings of the Management Council were perverse and without jurisdiction. It is contended that the Grievance Committee had no jurisdiction to decide the matter of grievance raised before it. It could not have sat as if it is an Appellate Authority and could not have assessed or re-appreciated the evidence led in inquiry by Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the Management Council under the circumstances, without independently applying the mind, has mechanically accepted the report of the Grievance Committee. Dr.Uday Bodhankar was Chairman while Dr. Suryakar was member of the Enquiry Committee which was constituted pursuant to complaint by Shri G.V. Patil. They could not have been members of the Grievance Committee. They became judges in their own cause. The case of the petitioners is that respondent no.3 was never appointed and selected as a Professor by a duly constituted Selection Committee, although he was appointed as Dean by the previous Management and he continued for the period of 10 years. Appointment of respondent no.3 as Dean was challenged in Writ Petition No.228 of 1995. Report of the Grievance Committee was, therefore, unjust, contrary to the basic principles of doing justice. The Management Council, whose decision to judge the report of the Grievance Committee become final, must have been validly constituted in view of objection by the petitioners. Section 26(4) of the MUHS Act required 16 members, of which at least 7 members shall form the quorum for the meeting. The petitioners should have been granted the opportunity of hearing. It was not granted. Quoram was absent as only 4 members were present in meeting dt.2.3.2012. They were Dr. Arun Jamkar, Dr.Yelikar and Dr.S.D.Salvi, Dr.Mansingh Pawar. (Later two were also member of the Grievance Committee and could not have participated as members of the Management Council). Under these circumstances, the Management Council could not have passed Resolution No.20/2012, dt.2.3.2012, accepting the report of the Grievance Committee without any proper quorum. It is submitted that the Management Council acted erroneously and unlawfully in a biased manner holding that the enquiry held against respondent no.3 was not in order and that no charges are proved against respondent no.3 and that the termination order is illegal and liable to be set aside. Pursuant to the Resolution, the Registrar communicated the decision of the Management Council calling upon the petitioners to comply with the requirements of the Resolution passed by the Management Council.

8. It is not in dispute that Section 53 of the MUHS Act provides for mechanism of the Grievance Committee consisting of the Chairperson, four members and the Registrar acting as Member-Secretary (without the right to vote), in the University to deal with the grievances of the teachers and other employees in the University, College, educational institute affiliated to hear and settle the grievances and report to the Management Council. The Grievance Committee was constituted consisting of the Chairperson Dr. A. P. Kulkarni (Pro vice Chancellor as Chairperson), Dr. Uday Bodhankar, Dr.Gajanan Ekbote, Dr.S.D.Dalvi (he also acted as member of Management Council), Dr.Mansingh Pawar (he also acted as member of the Management Council) as members and Dr.A.N.Suryakar as Member-Secretary. The meetings were held on 31.10.2011 and 8.11.2011. The final minutes of the meeting which took place was signed only by Dr.A.P.Kulkarni and Dr. Suryakar, later Member-Secretary who had no right to vote. Thus, it appears that the only voting entitled member was Dr.Kulkarni. As such, he was sole signatory for the allegedly authentic minutes proceeding.

9. The decision of the Management Council, upon report of the Grievance Committee, is treated as final. Dr. S.D.Dalvi and Dr. Mansingh Pawar could not have been members of the Grievance Committee as it amounts to acting as judges in their own cause if they are to preside over the Management Council over the report to which they were parties in the Grievance Committee. Because the Management Council is the Authority to make final decision on the report sent by the Grievance Committee and to direct follow-up action.

10. The MUHS Act is aimed at independent university for proper & systematic institutes, teaching & research in modern medicines and Indian systems. College Tribunal is not provided under the MUHS Act. Grievance Committee has wide powers under Section 53(1) and 53 (2) of the Act in a manner to restrict the jurisdiction and powers of the Grievance Committee. Thus, any person within the jurisdiction of the MUHS Act, if he has sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration and seeks redress for the grievance in a complaint made to the grievance committee, the Grievance Committee has necessary powers in accordance with the provisions of the Act to set right the controversy generated, if any, with reasonable promptness.

11. On behalf of the respondent/University, it is contended that the petitioners had, in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.4065 of 2010 when the matter was remanded, had acquiesced in and did not raise any objection as to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee. Section 53 (3) of the Act does not provide for the specific quorum for the meetings of the Grievance Committee. The quorum would be governed by Section 46 (3) of the Act. The quorum, thus, would be one-third of the number of sitting members and at the meeting dt.31.10.2011, Dr.Kulkarni as pro Vice-Chancellor and Dr. Kulkarni and Dr.Ekbote were present apart from the Registrar ( who had no right to vote ). Thus, it is submitted by respondent no.3 that total more than one-third members were present and quorum was present. On 8.11.2011, Pro Vice chancellor Dr.Kulkarni and Dr.Dalvi apart from the Registrar were present and one-third quorum was available in accordance with law. It is argued that the petitioners did not raise any objection as to the requisite quorum and they cannot now turn round to contend that the quorum was not proper. Under Sub-section (a) of Section 92 of the MUHS Act, no acts or proceedings shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground of non-availability of the members to attend the meeting of any Authority, body or Committee. It is submitted that, in accordance with Section 26(4) of the MUHS Act, the Management Council had nine persons present on 2.3.2012 when the petitioners and respondent no.3 were heard. The petitioners did not raise objection that there was lack of quorum at the time of the meeting but raised the afterthought inconsequential objection by letter dt.14.3.2012. The Registrar as a Member-Secretary of the Grievance Committee cannot be excluded from the meetings merely because he had no right to vote. Question of right to vote arise when there is difference of opinion and the voting is required. There was no such difference or division of opinion. The objection that some of the members of the Grievance Committee were also members of the Management Council is conceived as Section 53 (3) of the MUHS Act contemplates that the Grievance Committee shall consist of a Chairperson and four members of the Management Council nominated from amongst themselves. The Registrar-Secretary is additional member without right to vote. It is urged that the Management Council has unanimously accepted the report of the Grievance Committee which acted without a quorum as required under Section 26 (4) which stipulates that seven members shall form Management Council quoram to carry on meeting.

12. Reference is made to the ruling by this Court in the case of Karimkhan s/o. Sailanikhan vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 412 : [2011 ALL MR (Cri) 3233] that an interpretation which furthers the purpose of the Act must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. This Court in the case of SharadchandraVasant Chitnis vs. Mrs. Neela Ashok Korde and another reported in 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 873 (para 14) has observed that the Court has to give plain meaning to the language used by the legislation and only when the language used by the legislature is ambiguous, the Court may try to interpret the same in such a way that it serves and further the purpose and object the legislation.

13. Reliance is placed on the case of Chaganlal Girdhari Kundkar vs. Parmatma Ek Sewak Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur and Others reported in 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 463 to argue that the Court cannot add words to Statute or replace the words, which are not there. In the ruling in the case of Executive Engineer Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (Southco) and another vs. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, 2012 (3) Mh.L.J. 536 (SC) : [2012 ALL SCR 1113], relevancy of objects and reasons for enacting an Act is relevant consideration for the Court. In section 53 of MUHS Act, the provision for the Grievance Committee is to provide an effective grievance redressal forum to teachers and other employees. The Grievance Committee has wide powers to deal with the grievances of the teachers and other employees of the University, College, Institution and to settle their grievances as far as may be practicable within certain time frame. The Grievance Committee under the MUHS Act must provide for inbuilt competent Authority to solve the dispute arising inside the University or educational Institution or likewise. By creating such forum, the University exercises the Authority and jurisdiction as a loco-parentis over teachers both approved and unapproved, to provide effective redressal forum to teachers working in various Colleges affiliated with the university. The dominant statutory intention is to protect dignity of teachers against any kind of harassment which they may receive at their workplace. The term 'grievance 'is not defined by the 1998 Act. It indicates some complaint about unfair treatment, protest or grumble or sort of protest arising due to infringement of right, ill-treatment, injury or injustice done or unfairness caused. The dictionary meaning shows that it is feeling of resentment over something believed to be wrong or unfair. Grievance committee is the creation of the Statute created to hear and settle the grievances expeditiously and report to the Management council in the prescribed form for consideration and follow-up decision in it 's ensuing regular Meeting as far as possible. And to issue directions to be complied with within certain period. The intention of the law makers being to enable the grievance committee to hear and settle the grievance expeditiously and to report accordingly to the Management Council which in turn is required to take prompt action and to implement the decision. The MUHS Act aims at early expeditious hearing and decision and the report.

14. In the instant case, the Grievance Committee's report is signed only by Pro-vice chancellor and the Registrar who is member-Secretary of the Grievance Committee using proforma given. Amongst the signatories the Pro Vice Chancellor was the Sole voting Member who signed as the Registrar is non-voting Member. The submission advanced on behalf of the respondent is that there was no prescribed quorum for the grievance committee to transact valid & lawful business. Quorum: (Latin: of whom) Minimum number of people necessarily present at a meeting for business to be validly conducted. Without a quorum, decisions are invalid. Quorum denotes presence of minimum number of persons as members of the organised statutory adjudicating body required for to transact the valid and lawful business. The quorum when necessary must be awaited, i.e. If so necessary the attendance of other members to form requisite quorum may be made compulsory for the grievance committee to be properly constituted for to function under the Act. Section 46(3) of the MUHS Act provides that the quorum for the meeting shall ordinarily be at least one-third of the sitting members and if there is no quorum the Chairperson shall adjourn the meeting till specific the quorum is attained on the same day or on later date. The MUHS Act has to be read as integral whole in its context to avoid any absurdity and to ascertain the correct intention of the legislation. In the case of Seth Govindji vs. Rao Saheb Jingonda Patil, (Writ Petition No.501 of 2008, dated 9th April, 2008) the Division Bench of this Court found that the appointment of the Chairman of the Grievance Committee was found invalid. This Court found substance in the submission that there is no power in the Management Council to issue directions about reinstatement of any teacher. Although this Court did not enter in details of the submission for decision in that case.

15. In the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others vs. Lakshmi Narain & Others, (1976) 2 SCC 58, the three judges Bench of the Apex Court observed in Para 10 thus:-

"It is, therefore, clear that there is a well-marked distinction between a body which is created by the statute and a body which after having come into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of the statute. In other words the position seems to be that the institution concerned must owe its very existence to a statute which would be the fountain-head of its powers. The question in such cases to be asked is, if there is no statute would the institution have any legal existence. If the answer is in the negative, then undoubtedly it is a statutory body, but if the institution has a separate existence of its own without any reference to the statute concerned but is merely governed by the statutory provisions it cannot be said to be a statutory body. The High Court, in our opinion, was in error in holding that merely because the Executive Committee followed certain statutory provisions of the University Act or the statutes made thereunder it must be deemed to be a statutory body. In fact the Full Bench of the High Court relied on three circumstances in order to hold that the Executive Committee was a statutory body, viz., (i) that it was affiliated to the Agra University which was established by the statute; (ii) that there were certain mandatory provisions in the Agra University Act which were binding on the Executive Committee; and (iii) that the Executive Committee was governed by the statutes framed by the Agra University. In our opinion, none of these factors would be sufficient to alter the character and nature of the Executive Committee and convert it into a full-fledged statutory body. To begin with the Executive Committee had an independent status having been registered under the Registration of Co-operative Societies Act and was a self-governed or an autonomous body. It was affiliated to the Agra University merely for the sake of convenience and mainly for the purpose that the courses of studies prevalent in the College may be recognised by the University."

16. Regarding the prescribed quorum for the meeting, in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Dr.Mohanjit Singh and another reported in 1988 (Supp) SCC 562, in Para 3 it was observed thus :

"3. The Government Order dated September 21, 1976, as far as relevant, provided :

To ensure that the colleges do not suffer for want of teachers till the College Service Commission is set up and starts its work, the managements shall be given the option to employ on a stop gap basis Lecturers and Principals other than those who are recruited by the Central Recruitment Agency. In those cases the teachers must be selected by a selection committee (and not by the Managing Committee itself) consisting of two representatives of the Management, two Professors or Readers representing the University to which the college is affiliated and a representative of the Director of Higher Education. The presence of at least one representative of the University and the representative of the Director of Higher Education in the Selection Committee meeting should be regarded as essential for completing the quorum.

The government order being clear as to the constitution of the committee to function as the selection body, in the absence of the representative of the Director of Higher Education, it cannot be said that there was a proper selection committee constituted on the date when respondent 1 was selected. Ratification by the District Education Officer at a later point of time cannot validate the proceedings of the selection committee as there was no quorum and in its absence, the committee was not entitled to transact business. The government order makes it clear that the selection committee is intended to function as a body. In case all the members were present at the selection there would have been scope for exchange of views when the candidates appeared and the selection would have been in terms of the scheme. Once a decision is taken and the absentee member is called upon to ratify the conclusion already reached, it becomes a very different type of activity. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the decision of the Administrative Tribunal on principle that the subsequent ratification constituted valid selection."

The principle of meeting with quorum is that exchange of views are possible and decision is taken by majority of all the members of the Committee or Council as the case may be.

17. Division Bench of this Court in Jyoti Gautam Patil vs. Presiding Officer for meeting convened for election of Sarpanch, Waigaon & others reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 424 : [2001(1) ALL MR 472] held that when there was no requisite quorum to commence with the meeting and the meeting ought to have been adjourned without transacting any business. When Presiding Officer failed to proceed in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Rules, this Court thought it fit to invoke extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and quashed and set aside the order impugned in that case.

In Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition (Vol. IX, page 48) para 95 reads as under:-.

"95. Presence of quorum necessary. The acts of a corporation, other than a trading corporation, are those of the major part of the corporators, corporately assembled. In other words, in the absence of special custom or of special provision in the constitution, the major part must be present at the meeting, and of that major part there must be a majority in favour of the act or resolution contemplated. Where, therefore, a corporation consists of thirteen members, there ought to be at least seven present to form a valid meeting, and the act of the majority of these seven or greater number will bind the corporation. In considering whether the requisite number is present, only those members must be included who are competent to take part in the particular business before the meeting. The power of doing a corporate act may, however, be specially delegated to a particular number of members, in which case, in the absence of any other provision, the method of procedure applicable to the body at large will be applied to the select body."

18. Thus, if a collective or joint act is required to be performed by a definite statutory body alone, or by a definite body coupled with an indefinite body and follow up by the Management Council in the instant case was required to be based upon the decision by the Grievance Committee; a majority of the voting members of the definite body forming "quorum" must be present. Where a Grievance Committee is required to be composed of several members, the general rule is that a majority of them forming a quorum must be present at a meeting. On behalf of the respondent no.3, Section 92 of the MUHS Act is pointed out as an exception to this general principle to argue that acting in absence of quorum is irregularity in procedure and not illegality affecting merits of the proceedings. We are afraid whether the submission can be accepted in view of the legal position and the rulings considered as above as brought to our notice as also the rules applicable. Quorum of the Management Council was incomplete as per Section 26 (4 ) of the MUHS Act. It is well settled that when power is given to to a certain thing in certain way it has to be done in that way alone or cannot be done at all. Failure to comply would vitiate the proceedings from the beginning and decision rendered would thus be vitiated (vide 1975 (1) SCC 559, Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others vs. Govind Joti Chavare and Others).

19. The objects of the Health University shall be to disseminate, create and preserve knowledge and understanding by teaching, research, extension and service and by effective demonstration and influence of its corporate life on society, in general, and in particular the objects shall be -

(a) to carry out its responsibility of creation, preservation and dissemination of knowledge ;

(b) to promote discipline and the spirit of intellectual inquiry and to dedicate itself as a fearless academic community to the sustained pursuit of excellence ;

(c) to encourage individuality and diversity within a climate of tolerance and mutual understanding

(d) to promote freedom, secularism, equality and social justice as enshrined in the Constitution of India and to be catalyst in socio-economic transformation by promoting basic attitudes and values of essence to national development;

(e) to extend the benefits of knowledge and skills for development of individuals and society by associating the University closely with local and regional problems of development ;

(f) to carry out social responsibility as an informed and objective critic, to identify and cultivate talent, to train the right kind of leadership in all walks of life and to help younger generation to develop right attitudes interests and values ;

(g) to promote equitable distribution of facilities of Health Sciences education;

(h) to provide for efficient and responsive administration, scientific management and develop organization of teaching and research ;

(i) to promote acquisition of knowledge in rapidly developing and changing society and to continually offer opportunities of upgrading knowledge, training; and skills in the context of innovations, research and discovery in all fields of human endeavour by developing educational network related to Health Sciences with use of modern communication media and technologies appropriate for a learning society;

(j) to strive to promote competitive merit and excellence as the sole guiding criterion in all academic and other matters relating to students ;

(k) to impart education and training to achieve the goal of physical, mental spiritual health of every individual ;

(l) to create better understanding between different systems of medicines through interdisciplinary study and research ;

(m) to establish and develop Indian Systems or Medicine so as to keep he of a healthy individual and to cure the disease or diseased individual.

20. Considering these salutary statutory objectives of the Health University, the bodies constituted under the Act are expected to leave no stone unturned to achieve them by acting punctually according to law and not in unlawful or irregular manner although the irregularity may be tolerable by way of an exception depending upon given facts and circumstances. We do not find acceptable exception to tolerate the irregularities committed.

21. Having considered the submissions and the rulings and objectives of the Health University under the MUHS Act, we think that the general principle is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as well for the same reason as in the instant case in hand. The Presiding Officer of the meeting who, convened the meeting for the Grievance Committee ought to have awaited the prescribed quorum to transact any business in the meeting convened. The principles of natural justice require that no man shall be judge in his own cause and the parties concerned are given opportunity of hearing before any adverse decision is taken by a quasi-judicial Authority. The prescribed statutory quorums need to be observed and the principles of natural justice are required to be followed in law of meeting as settled by now; unless there is statutory exception to tolerate such gave irregularity.

22. Thus, in the result, the writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned report of the Grievance Committee along with the Resolution passed by the Management Council are set aside.

Parties to this petition are at liberty to approach with written representation, if any, to the Grievance Committee on 10th November, 2014. Within two months thereof, upon receipt of the written representation/s, the Grievance Committee, if it so thinks necessary, shall hear the parties concerned by observing the quorum, as required, according to law and follow the principles of natural justice to make the decision afresh and then report to the Management Council for further appropriate action.

The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Petition partly allowed.