High Court Of Tripura vs Prakash Ch. Biswas And Ors

Akil Kureshi, CJ

This appeal is filed by the High Court of Tripura to challenge a judgment dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.202/2014 which was filed by the respondent No.1 herein. Petitioner was a candidate for Ph.D. Coursework Examination under the Department of Law, Tripura University (Central). At that time he was working as a Judicial Officer, Grade-II. He appeared in the said examination with a permission from the High Court. On 19.02.2014 when the examination was being conducted, according to the University authorities, the petitioner was found carrying on malpractices. He was issued a notice for expulsion by the University. Charges of examination malpractices were levelled against him. The Disciplinary Committee of the University conducted the proceeding and eventually the University on 09.04.2014 in addition to expelling the petitioner from such examination, debarred him from appearing in Ph.D. Coursework Examination in any department of Tripura University for a period of three years from 2014.

On account of the petitioner's involvement in the said case, the High Court placed the petitioner under suspension on 20th February, 2014 and thereafter instituted departmental inquiry against the petitioner which culminated into an order of compulsory retirement being passed against him on 23.09.2015.

The petitioner had filed the said Writ Petition(C) No. 202/2014 challenging his expulsion and debarment from future examinations which penalties were imposed on him by the Tripura University. In the said writ petition the petitioner had joined the Tripura University, its Vice Chancellor, other office bearers and members of the Disciplinary Committee as respondents. Since the petitioner had not challenged any order passed by the High Court in the said writ petition, the High Court was not joined as a respondent. The writ petition came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge by impugned judgment dated 06.09.2018. The writ petition was allowed in following terms:

"31. This court has further observe that even there is no observation in the resolution dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) that the slip which was used against the petitioner is relatable to any answer given by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no mark in the seized slip vouched by the Invigilator. Even though the petitioner has appeared before the Discipline Committee but the act of appearance itself cannot estop the petitioner from challenging the action of the Discipline Committee, which is tainted for non-observance of the Code and for violation of principles of natural justice.

So far the objections raised in respect of maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, this court is of the view that when the principles of natural justice are grossly violated in absence of any statutory rules and in view of the law enunciated in this regard this court would not entertain this objection in the circumstances of this case. The respondents even did not respond to the averments of the petitioner in the rejoinder that there was no existence of the Executive Council at the relevant point of time to prefer the appeal before it. Thus, the impugned decision dated 09.04.2014 contained in the resolution of the Disciplinary Committee (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) is set aside along with the order of the expulsion as issued by the respondent No.8. In the ordinary course, this court would have taken recourse of remitting the matter back for reconsideration by the Discipline Committee, but in the meanwhile more than three years, the period for which the petitioner had been debarred from appearing in the Ph.D. Course Work Examination, has elapsed and hence if the matter is remitted, the petitioner would suffer unfathomable prejudice.

In terms of what has been observed above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs."

It appears that the said judgment of the learned Single Judge was initially not challenged by the University. The High Court, however, decided to challenge the said judgment by filing writ appeal. Not being a party-respondent in the writ petition, IA No.2 of 2019 was filed seeking leave of the Court to file the appeal which was granted by an order dated 30th July, 2019 in which the Court observed that- "Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has an arguable case and there are certain points involved in the present appeal which needs consideration, the present petition for leave to appeal is allowed."

Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, we had heard learned counsel for the parties only on the preliminary question of locus standi of the High Court to maintain this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-High Court submitted that the action of the High Court to compulsorily retire the petitioner by way of penalty was based on his involvement in examination malpractices for which the University had suspended him in the current examination and debarred him from appearing in the future examinations for three years. When such orders were set aside by the learned Single Judge, it would have a direct bearing on the action taken by the High Court against the petitioner. The High Court, therefore, ought to have been joined as a respondent in the writ petition. In any case the High Court had a right to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

In our opinion, the High Court has no locus standi to maintain this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the Tripura University. According to the University the petitioner had indulged in examination malpractices for which he was suspended from the current examination and debarred for future examinations for three years. Whatever be the validity of such orders and merits or demerits of the petitioner's challenge to the same, the High Court had no lis with the said controversy. The decision of the learned Single Judge merely decided the correctness or otherwise of the action of the University which was adverse to the petitioner. Again whatever be the legality or otherwise of such decision of the learned Single Judge, the High Court had no stake in the matter and could not have filed appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Only on this ground, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal without examining the challenge to the judgment of the learned Single Judge on merit. We are conscious that the High Court had sought and was granted leave to appeal. However, firstly it was a summary consideration whether a non-respondent should be allowed to appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge. Secondly, it was an ex parte order and thirdly such order did not decide finally the issue of locus standi of the High Court to maintain the appeal.

In the result, appeal is dismissed.