Judgment:
ORDER
K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The petitioner-associations have filed this Writ petition seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the Memorandum of Agreement dated 20.10.1999.
2. The 1st respondent raised certain demands and the respondents called the 1st petitioner-association in their letter dated 26.3.1999 for negotiations. Both the petitioner-unions for the purpose of negotiation formed a Joint Action Committee. The respondents called the joint Action committee for negotiations on 13.10.1999 and 20.10.1999. After negotiations, the respondents prepared a Memorandum of Agreement which was signed by both sides on 20.10.1999. Some of the clauses in the agreement under which benefits were given to the members of the petitioners were implemented by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that some of the demands which were approved by the Syndicate were not implemented. Stating that refusal to implement the Memorandum of Agreement on the part of the respondents is unjust, illegal and unconstitutional, petitioners have filed this writ petition.
3. The respondents filed a counter stating that this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to enforce the said agreement. The execution of the Memorandum of Agreement is admitted in the counter. On the basis of the Government letters both dated 18.1.2000, it is stated that all clauses in the agreement have far reaching financial implications to the University and other Universities, and the University was asked to stay the operation of the same. On the basis of the said letter, the Syndicate in the meeting held on 1.1.2000 resolved that the objections raised by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department be recorded and that the implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement was suspended till a decision is taken by the Finance Committee as per the orders of the Vice-Chancellor, Subsequently, the Finance Committee was constituted and the said Committee considered the recommendations made by Sub-Committee which in turn were placed before the syndicate and the syndicate approved the recommendations of the Finance Committee, and they are being implemented. On the basis of the same, the respondents have come forward with the plea that some of the clauses in the agreement have been complied with, some of them could not be complied with either because of the rules in force or for want of orders from the Government, and some of them are under consideration of the University. It is also the case of the respondents that it is open to the University not to carry out certain demands if they are opposed to rules, policy of the University or directions of the Government. It is further stated that in view of agitation and administrative anxiety and urgency to bring an early end of such agitation and restore normalcy, the usual procedure of referring certain matters involving financial commitments to Finance Committee was lost sight of and settlement was arrived at under pressure of circumstances. On the basis of these averments, the respondents prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
4. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu has no right or jurisdiction to interfere in the matters relating to the salary, advances, allowances and other benefits payable to the administrative staff of the University. Referring to Clauses (2) and (7) and Section 9(2) (1) of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', it is stated that the Syndicate is. the ultimate authority to .fix the emoluments, offering the financial estimates and to hold, control and administer the property and funds of the University. It is also stated that the demands approved by the Syndicate would not affect the financial liability of the University, as the financial liability of the University is sound, and after receipt of the expenditure, there is a balance of 208.72 lakhs. With respect to the Government contribution by way of grant, it is stated that the University is not functioning under the grant, of the Government alone, as the grant to the University is very small compared to the total income of the University.
5. I heard Mr. Habibullah Basha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P. Jothimani for the respondents.
6. In the present case, admittedly, there was a Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the Joint Action Committee on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents along with Syndicate Members. It is also not in dispute that the Syndicate had approved the clauses in the agreement, and referred a few items to the Financial Committee, and, factually certain clauses were implemented as agreed. Even after implementation of the clauses, the respondents stopped giving benefits to the staff, pursuant to the letter from the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, dated 18.1.2000. Now the respondents have come forward with the plea that such agreement was entered into by the respondents with an administrative anxiety and urgency to bring an early end of the agitation. It is the further case Of the respondents that such agreement is contrary to the Rules, policies and of the University, and so it cannot be enforced.
7. From the above pleadings and arguments, we have to decide thefollowing issues :-
(1) Whether this writ petition, to implement the Memorandum of Agreement, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable?
(2) Whether the defence taken by the respondents for not implementing the Memorandum of Agreement is sustainable in law?
8. As contemplated under Section 20 of the Act, the Syndicate has to frame the financial estimates of the University and submit the same to the Senate which is the supreme governing body of the University. The Syndicate is having power under the said provision to appoint the University Lecturers, University Readers, University Professors and the teachers and servants of the University, fix their emoluments, if any, define their duties and the conditions of their services and provide for filling up of temporary vacancies. Even under Chapter X of the Laws of the University Statutes, the Syndicate is given such powers.
9. From the above, it is clear that if any decision is taken by the Syndicate with respect to appointment or emoluments of staff, the same is final insofar as the respondent-University is concerned. In the present case, the Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the Convenors and Members of the Joint Action Committee on behalf of the petitioner-association and the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar along with six Syndicate members. The respondents have now come forward with the plea in the counter that it is only an agreement and so this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained to enforce the same. Such a plea is not available to the respondents as the said Memorandum of Agreement was accepted by the Syndicate, and, once it is accepted by the Syndicate exercising their powers under Section 20 of the Act, the said benefits should be taken as they were given exercising powers under the Act and Statutes Of the University, and the members of the petitioner-association are having legally protected right over such benefits.
10. So, to enforce the said right of the members of the petitioner-association, the petitioners can sustain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the respondent-University is having legal duty under the statutes of the University to grant such benefits to the staff. So the contention raised by the respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable cannot be sustainable.
11. Moreover the respondent-University cannot act arbitrarily and its action must be in conformity with some principles which meet the test of reason and relevance. They cannot be allowed to raise a technical objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. Even regarding the maintainability of the writ petition to enforce the contract entered into by a statutory authority, the Apex Court in the decision in Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Ghotels Pvt. Ltd,. : has held as follows :-
'12. Now if appellant entered into a solemn contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and the respondent acted upon if, the statutory corporation cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily so as to cause harm and injury, flowing from its unreasonable conduct to the respondent. In such a situation, the Court is not powerless from holding the appellant to its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of mandamus directing it to perform its statutory duty. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would certainly lie to direct performance of a statutory duty by 'other authority' as envisaged by Article 12'.
12. The respondent-University has come forward with further plea in the counter that in view of the Government Order, they have stopped implementation of the clauses in the said agreement. I am not able to understand as to how the Government can interfere with the administration of the University, as the administration of the respondent university comes only under the Act and Statutes of the University. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not pointed out any one of the provisions under the Act or Statutes to show that the Government is having anyauthority to give such instruction. So the respondents are not justified in relying on the letter of the Secretary to the Government to deny the benefits given under the agreement and approved by the Syndicate.
13. I am surprised to see the stand taken by the respondent University to deny the case of the petitioner-association. In the counter, it is stated as follows :-
'It is submitted that in view of agitation and Administrative anxiety and urgency to bring an early end of such agitation and restore normalcy the usual procedure of referring certain matters involving heavy financial commitments to Finance Committee was lost sight of and the settlement was arrived at under pressure of circumstances'.
The responsible body like respondent-University which are creating Scholars of our country, have come forward with the plea that they have entered into the said agreement under pressure and so such an agreement cannot be implemented. The said averment made in the counter clearly establishes the inability and incapacity of the respondent University in managing the affairs of the University. If really they could not agree for such conditions, they ought not to have entered into such agreement. If the said stand taken is accepted it amounts to cheating the staff. This Court does not expect the officials who signed the said agreement to go to that extent. Responsible officials of the respondent-University like the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and the Syndicate members have signed the said agreement. So, it cannot be said that they have signed the agreement without realizing the consequences and enforceability of the same under the Rules. It cannot also be said that the said agreement was entered into without having any intention to implement the same. In the counter, the respondents have come forward with the plea that the agreement was entered into without even referring the same to the Finance Committee. It is not the case of the respondent-University that the officials who signed the said agreement did not know about the procedure. But, on the other hand, it is only a procedure and even if it is not followed, it cannot be said that the said agreement entered into between both the parties becomes illegal. As a matter of fact, the Syndicate had approved most of the conditions, and in fact, implemented certain clauses in the said agreement. The respondents are not entitled to come forward with the above said pleas, as the agreement was signed by the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and six Syndicate members, approved in the Syndicate meeting, and having implemented the same.
14. For all the foregoing reasons, the respondents cannot go back from enforcing the said agreement which was approved by the Syndicate of the respondent-university and so the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with costs, W.M.P. No. 14069 of 2000 is closed.