Bombay HC stays termination of Solapur university senate members

The Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday stayed a February 4 order of Solapur University wherein the membership of five members of the senate, management council and board of studies were terminated after it came to light that they had given false information to the media about the vice-chancellor of the university

The Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday stayed a February 4 order of Solapur University wherein the membership of five members of the senate, management council and board of studies were terminated after it came to light that they had given false information to the media about the vice-chancellor of the university. The court held that the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, under which the membership of the members were terminated, was applicable to students and could not be applied to senate members, hence the court stayed the termination order and asked the university to file its reply before the next hearing on April 6.

Bombay high court.

A division bench of justice Ujjal Bhuyan and justice Milind Jadhav, while hearing five petitions filed by the terminated members, was informed by advocates NV Bandiwadekar and Milind Deshmukh for the members that the petitioners were duly appointed to the senate, management council and board of studies after, following the due procedure laid down in the Maharashtra Universities Act.

The advocates submitted that on February 4, the university issued them a notice section 71(10)(c) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 stating that their membership was terminated as they had provided some information without evidence to news reporter against the vice-chancellor of respondent No.1 (Solapur University) which was later on found to be incorrect.

The advocates then argued that the provisions under which the members were terminated dealt with conditions of residence, conduct and discipline of the students of the universities, colleges and recognized institutions and the action to be taken against them for breach of discipline and misconduct within or outside universities. They concluded that as the petitioners were teachers and elected members of the said bodies the same provision could not be applied to them.

Advocates PN Joshi and Nikhil Pujari for the university submitted that the termination of the membership under section 64 of the aforesaid Act particularly to clauses (f) and (h) was valid and sought time to file reply affidavits.

After hearing the submissions, the bench observed, “On a reading of the said provisions we find that those can be invoked to disqualify membership from the above authorities if there is omission or commission on the part of the member to carry out the provisions of the act, statutes or ordinances or disclose or cause to disclose to the public any confidential matter concerning examination or evaluation.” The court then held that as the grounds on which the memberships were terminated were not as per the provisions, stayed the termination as an interim measure and directed the university to file its reply before the next hearing on April 6.