Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DR. JANET JEYAPAUL …………………………………………………….PETITIONER

V.

SRM UNIVERSITY…………………………………………. ………..RESPONDENT

MEMORIAIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

In the judicature of The Hon’ble Supreme

Court Of India
 INDEX

1. List of References………………………………………………………………………………….3

2. Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………4

3. Statement of facts…………………………………………………………………………………5

4. Statement of Issues……………………………………………………………………………….6

5. Summary Arguments…………………………………………………………………………….7

6. Arguments advanced……………………………………………………………………………8

7. Prayer ……………………………………………………………………………………………9
 REFERENCE

The Constitution of India

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant approached this Hon’ble court under article 132 of the constitution of
India
 STATEMENT OF FACTS.

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, which lie in a narrow
compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. The facts are as follows:

(a) The S.R.M. University-respondent herein is the Institution engaged in imparting high
education in various subjects. The Central Government has, therefore, on the advise of
University Grants Commission (in short “UGC”) declared respondent No.1 as “Deemed
University” by issuing a notification under Section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 (in short “the UGC Act”). Respondent is, therefore, subjected to
ensuring compliance of all the provisions of UGC Act in its functioning.

(b) The petitioner is holding M.Sc. and P.hd. in applied Biology. She was appointed as a
Lecturer in the Department of Bio-technology in the Faculty of Sciences and Humanity in
the SRM University-respondent No.1. By order dated 05.05.2010, she was promoted as
Senior Lecturer w.e.f. 01.04.2010.

(c) On 14.02.2012, the petitioner was served with a memo calling upon her to show cause
as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against her for the alleged failure to take
classes of the students of B.Sc. Third Year degree course and M.Sc. First Year degree
course. The petitioner submitted her replies on 15.02.2012 and 20.02.2012 denying the
allegations and claiming that she took classes for both the courses.

(d) Thereafter, another memo dated 22.02.2012 was issued by the Registrar in-charge of
the University referring certain complaints given against her by the students. Refuting the
charges, the petitioner submitted her reply on 29.02.2012.

(e) Dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, respondent -SRM University
constituted an Enquiry Committee and the petitioner appeared before the said Committee
on 02.03.2012 and stated that she was not furnished the documents and the copies of the
complaints. Thereafter she submitted a detailed explanation on 26.03.2012.

(f) Thereafter the petitioner received a notice dated 04.04.2012 mentioning therein that
the same shall be treated as one month’s notice and she would be relieved from the
services w.e.f. 04.05.2012. According to the petitioner, she received the notice on
16.04.2012.

(g) Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 12676 of 2012
before the High Court. By order dated 08.04.2013, the Single Judge of the High Court
allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination notice and directed the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner into service.

(h) Against the said order, respondent No.1 herein filed Writ Appeal No. 932 of 2013
before the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 04.07.2013, the Division Bench of
the High Court allowed the appeal. It was held that the writ petition filed by the petitioner
against respondent No.1 was not maintainable as according to the Division Bench,
respondent No.1 is neither a State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and hence it cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality and correctness of the
dismissal order. The Division Bench, therefore, did not examine the merits of the case
made out by the petitioner successfully before the Single Judge. The Division Bench,
however, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for ventilating of her
grievance on merits.

(i) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred this appeal by way of
special leave before this Court.

ISSUES FRAMED

Whether a writ petition be filed against a deemed university under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in a high court? Is it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the high court?
 SUMMARY ARGUMENTS:

 Whether a writ petition be filed against a deemed university under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in a high court? Is it amenable to the writ jurisdiction
of the high court?
 ARGEMENTS IN DETILS
Whether a writ petition be filed against a deemed university under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in a high court? Is it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the high
court?

if this Court holds that respondent No. 1 is amenable to writ jurisdiction then apart from
employees even those who are otherwise dealing with respondent No. 1 would start invoking
writ jurisdiction which, according to learned counsel, would open the flood gate of litigation
in courts. Also the writ petition of Supreme court is only confined to state and what is state is
clearly laid down in R.d.shetty case vs International airport authority case. Under that case
the court said that the institutions which pass the test will only be the states.
The Court held that there is no cut and dried formula which would provide the correct
division of corporations into those which are instrumentalities or agencies of Government and
those which are not. The Court made an analogy on the concept of State Action as developed
in the United States wherein private agency if supported by extra-ordinary assistance given
by the State may be subject to the same constitutional limitations as the State. The Court also
held that if extensive and unusual financial assistance is given and the purpose of such
assistance coincides with the purpose for which the corporation is expected to use the
assistance and such purpose is of public character, it may be a relevant circumstance
supporting an inference that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the
Government.

The Court enumerated the following five factors which would determine whether a body
comes under the definition of State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution:

Financial assistance given by the State and magnitude of such

Any other forms of assistance whether of the usual kind or extraordinary.

Control of management and policies of the corporation by the State – nature and extent of
control.

State conferred or State protected monopoly status and

Functions carried out by the corporation, whether public functions closely related to
governmental functions, would determine whether a corporation is an instrumentality or
agency of the State or not.
What is government function under last guideline is a question of fact. Now under our case
the university is private university and if it can be held as a state than there will be no
intelligible differencia between public sector and private sector...more over the dispute
between a amployer and employees will not be of a public nature...so this.petition is liable to
be dismissed
 Prayer:
Wherefore in the lights of facts stated, authorities cited and cases referred. The respondent
most humbly prays to this Hon’ble cour to:

1. to dismiss the petition

Pass any other order which the Hon’ble court deems fit in the light of Justice, Equity and
Good conscience.

The respondent shall be duty-bound to this Hon’ble Court forever pray.

Sd/-

Counsel for respondent