ORDER
K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. The petitioner has called in question the communication sent by the Registrar of University of Mysore dated 1-8-2002, pursuant to a decision of the Syndicate of the University relieving the petitioner from the post of Director, Audio-Visual Research Centre, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore and repatriating as Professor, Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore.
2. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Journalism in the year 1983 and promoted as Reader in the year 1994. She was further selected and appointed as Professor in the same Department in the year 1996. In the year 1995, a Media Centre was constituted by the University Grants Commission by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Mysore. The entire finance is borne out of UGC funds. The Media Centre is known as the Audio-Visual Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as 'AVRC' for short) with an object of upgrading and enriching the quality of education through broadcast by television. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding entered into amongst the UGC, University of Mysore and the Consortium for Educational Communication, the Media was established.
3. On 26-7-1997 the University of Mysore notified inviting the applications to fill up various posts including the post of Director which is produced as Annexure-D to the writ petition. According to this notification, the tenure of the post of Director was initially for a period of 2 years on contract/tenure basis. On successful completion of the Probationary period, which can be continued for a period of 5 years or till the closure of the project, whichever is earlier. The petitioner pursuant to the said notification filed an application for the post of Director and the Board of Management of AVRC selected the petitioner to the post of Director. The order of appointment of the petitioner is produced as Annexure-K, dated 13-8-1998. This order has been issued by the Registrar of Mysore University.
4. Though she was appointed initially for a period of 2 years, her tenure has been extended for a period of 5 years as per notification dated 26-7-1997.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that all of a sudden, Annexure-A has been issued by the Registrar pursuant to the decision of the Syndicate of the Mysore University. According to her she is not liable to be relieved from the said post as either the tenure of 5 years has not been completed or that project has not been closed. Therefore, she has approached this Court challenging the validity of the order passed by the Syndicate of the Mysore University which has been communicated by the Registrar of Mysore University as Annexure-A.
6. The University has resisted the case of the petitioner. The University has filed a detailed counter. According to the University, the order of appointment of the petitioner as Director of AVRC is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction and control of University and that as a Professor, Journalism and Mass Communication she retained her lien in the University over the said post. Though AVRC is a separate Department of the Mysore University like any other Department, it is under its direct control and supervision and that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 22-2-2002. The operative portion of the said letter is quoted as hereunder;
'If the University suspects my integrity, my conscience does not permit me to continue as Director of AVRC, I request you to kindly make alternative arrangements for the post of Director and I may be permitted to go back to my original post in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the earliest'.
7. It is also stated by the University that based on the report of Prof. V.M. Parvathamma in regard to certain malpractices said to have been committed by the Director of AVRC and also based on the raid made by the Lokayuktha, in the interest of the AVRC, a Resolution was passed by the Syndicate to recall the services of the petitioner from the post of Director and calling upon her to report as Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication and that the University, which has control over the appointment and service condition of the petitioner has exercised its power to recall the petitioner from the post of Director of AVRC and therefore, the University requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition. The University has also raised an objection that the petition filed by the petitioner as not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 29-7-2002.
8. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri B.V. Acharya for Sri B.L. Acharya and also Sri S.G. Bhagwan appearing for the University of Mysore.
9. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri B.V. Acharya for the petitioner contends that the act of the University in recalling the petitioner from the post of Director of AVRC pursuant to a Resolution passed by the Syndicate dated 29-7-2002 is bad in law. According to him, the Syndicate has no power to recall the petitioner from the post of Director of AVRC. He contends that the post of Director of AVRC is under the control of Board of Management constituted pursuant to Consortium which has been arrayed as respondent 2 and that the lien of the petitioner to the post of Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication cannot be recalled by respondent 1 unilaterally and that lien can be exercised only by the petitioner and not by the University. He further contends that the petitioner has not been deputed by the University to the post of Director of AVRC to repatriate her from the said post. He further contends that from the perusal of the Resolution of the Syndicate, it is crystal-clear that a stigma has been attached to the petitioner and such a Resolution should not have been passed by the Syndicate. Therefore, the order dated 1-8-2002 communicated to the petitioner by the University of Mysore as per Annexure-A is liable to be quashed.
10. Per contra, Sri S.G. Bhagwan, appearing for the University contends that the Syndicate has got every power to pass a Resolution which is produced as Annexure-3.
11. The extract of the proceedings of the Syndicate dated 29-7-2002 is extracted below for better understanding of the case:
'The Vice-Chancellor informed that enquiry report of Prof. V.M. Parvathamma, Syndicate Member about the alleged malpractices of Director, AVRC has been received and the same has been placed before the Syndicate for discussion. He also informed that the recommendations made by her regarding the improvement of AVRC will be placed before the Advisory Committee of AVRC for necessary action.
Dr. Mahadev, Syndicate Member initiated the discussion on the said report and brought to the notice that certain facts have not been brought in this report. After a detailed discussion, the Syndicate took note of the report submitted by Smt. Parvathamma and keeping in view of the recent raid of the office of the AVRC by Lokayuktha, it was decided that the services of Prof. Usha Rani, must be withdrawn from AVRC as Director and she will be posted back as Professor of Mass Communication and Journalism, University of Mysore'.
12. Sri S.G. Bhagwan, relying upon the notification produced by the petitioner as Annexure-D, dated 26-7-1997 and Annexure-K the order of appointment issued by the Registrar, University of Mysore, contends that as the University retained the control over the post of Director of AVRC, the University is entitled to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. He further contends that the Resolution of the Syndicate dated 29-7-2002 cannot be held as a stigma attached to the petitioner's post and according to him though the lien of the petitioner has not been withdrawn by using specific words, the sum and substance of the Resolution amounts to withdrawal of the lien of the petitioner and therefore, he requests this Court to reject the petition.
13. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, what is required to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is:
1. Whether the petitioner was deputed as Director of AVRC by the Syndicate of Mysore University so as to recall her from the post of Director of AVRC?
2. Whether the petitioner can be relieved of her duties from the post of Director of AVRC by the Syndicate of Mysore University even though the petitioner was appointed by the Board of Management, Audio-Visual Research Centre (R-2)?
3. Whether the petitioner can be repatriated as Professor of Mass Communication and Journalism by the, Syndicate of Mysore University?
14. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that Media Centre, namely AVRC, has been established pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding entered into among the UGC, University of Mysore and Consortium for Educational Communication. The guidelines for Media Centre is also produced before this Court as Annexure-C to the writ petition which clearly show the powers vested with the University of Mysore and how the Media Centres are to be established and functioned. It is no doubt true the building and other infrastructures are provided by the University of Mysore, but the entire finance is given by the UGC. A Board of Management is also established in regard to the recruitment to the various posts, and that the Board of Management is empowered to recruit. The Registrar of Mysore University is the Secretary of the Board of Management and the Vice-Chancellor of the Mysore University is the Chairperson of the Board of Management. The notification issued by the University of Mysore dated 26-7-1997 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was selected as the Director by the Board of Management.
15. From this, it is clear that she has been selected as the Director of AVRC pursuant to a selection by the Board of Management. Therefore, it is clear that though the notification has been issued in the name of Registrar of Mysore University and the order of appointment has been issued by the Registrar, her appointment to the post of Director has to be considered as an appointment directly made by the Board of Management. Though in the appointment order, it is mentioned that the appointment is subject to disciplinary jurisdiction and control of University, this Court has to hold that her appointment is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction and control of the Board of Management only.
16. Then the next question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the services of the petitioner can be withdrawn or terminated by the University of Mysore pursuant to a Resolution passed by the Syndicate. When this Court has held that she has been appointed by the Board of Management and that her appointment is subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction and control of the Board of Management, this Court is not in a position to accept the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the University, that the Syndicate had all powers to terminate the services of the Director merely because that she has retained the lien over the post of Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, the learned Counsel for the University has made available several records to show that the lien retained by the petitioner has been extended from time to time. From this it is clear that the petitioner has retained the lien over the post of Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication. But, it does not mean that University can exercise its right to terminate the services of the petitioner even prior to the completion of the tenure of 5 years or before closure of the project.
17. From the reading of the Resolution of the Syndicate, it is clear that the Syndicate has never exercised its power to recall the lien of the petitioner, but the services of the petitioner has been recalled from the post of Director of AVRC based on the report submitted by one of the Syndicate members, Smt. Parvatharmna in regard to certain allegations made against the petitioner in regard to irregularities and also on the fact that a raid was conducted by Lokayuktha on this Centre in question. By reading the Resolution of the Syndicate it is clear that the services of the petitioner from the post of Director of AVKC has been withdrawn unilaterally, without there being any jurisdiction vested in the Syndicate of Mysore University, when the petitioner has been appointed by the Board of Management, namely, the 2nd respondent, whether the Syndicate of Mysore University will get jurisdiction to withdraw the services as discussed above. When the Appointing Authority is the 2nd respondent, the Syndicate of Mysore University will not get any jurisdiction to pass a Resolution as per Annexure-3 to the statement of objections,
18. Therefore, I hold that the Resolution passed by the Syndicate of Mysore University dated 29-7-2002 is without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed,
19. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Communication dated 1-8-2002 as per Annexure-A made by the Registrar of Mysore University and also the Resolution dated 29-7-2002 passed by the Syndicate, Mysore University are hereby quashed and that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Director of AVRC with all consequential benefits. In the circumstances, parties to bear the cost.