Orissa High Court invokes global philosophers to remind government: Universities not your departments
The Orissa High Court made the observation while hearing the plea of a university employee seeking regularisation of his service.
The matter arose from a plea filed by Premraj Panda, whose claim for regularisation as a junior assistant was rejected by the Department of Higher Education. (AI-generated image) Drawing from the words of philosophers Wilhelm von Humboldt and Karl Jaspers, and quoting the reports of the S Radhakrishnan Commission and the Kothari Commission, the Orissa High Court has ruled that the state government cannot treat universities as its departments.
Dealing with the plea of a junior assistant seeking regularisation of his service at the university, a division bench of Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash set aside the government order and upheld the single bench’s order granting regularisation.
Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash heard the matter on May 14.
“The state government cannot treat the Universities as its Departments, inasmuch as these Universities are creatures of law and their affairs are governed by the Odisha Universities Act, 1989. The provisions of the Act apparently confer autonomy on the universities. It is the university, which happens to be the employer, and not the state government,” the Orissa High Court said on May 14.
Justice Dixit, who authored the judgment, cited the S Radhakrishnan Commission, which warned that exclusive control of education by the state has been an important factor in facilitating the maintenance of totalitarian tyrannies.
The order went on to cite the KS Kothari Commission Report (1964-66) regarding institutional autonomy, stating, “University Autonomy… The proper sphere of university autonomy lies principally in three fields: – the selection of students; – the appointment and promotion of teachers; – the determination of courses of study, methods of teaching, and the selection of areas and problems of research…”
“…Universities as the organs of Civilisation – he indeed must be blind who does not see that, mighty as are the political changes, far deeper are the fundamental questions which will be decided by what happens in the universities…,” the Orissa High Court stated, quoting the Kothari Commission report.
‘Academic freedom a privilege’
- Quoting German-Swiss psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers’ (1883-1969) words in ‘The Idea of the University’, the Orissa High Court stated that the university is a community of scholars and students engaged in the task of seeking truth.
- It is a “body that administers its own affairs” regardless of whether it derives its means from endowments, ancient property rights, or the state; or whether its “original public sanction comes from papal bulls, imperial charters, or the acts of provinces or states.”
- It went on to point out that academic freedom carries a duty to teach the truth without interference.
- The university is the one place where “by concession of state and society a given epoch may cultivate the clearest possible self-awareness… For it is a human right that man must be allowed somewhere to pursue truth unconditionally and for its own sake…”
- Underscoring the autonomy of higher education institutions against state overreach, the Orissa High Court further referred to US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s observation, saying that for a citizen to be made to forego even a part of so basic a liberty as his political autonomy, “the subordinating interest of the State must be compelling…”
- Justice Frankfurter also asserted that a ‘free society’ depends on ‘free universities’ and ‘this means the exclusion of governmental intervention in the intellectual life of a university.
Humboldt on ‘national education’
Justice Dixit also cited Wilhelm Von Humboldt (1767-1835), a Prussian Philosopher and founder of the University of Berlin, who wrote in his Book ‘The Spheres and Duties of Government’ that education controlled by the state is questionable because it risks enforcing a single model of development.
“…national education – or that which is organised or enforced by the States – is at least in many respects very questionable. The grand, leading principle, towards which every argument hitherto unfolded…directly converges, is the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity; but national education, since at least it presupposes the selection and appointment of some one instructor, must always promote a definite form of development, however careful to avoid such an error.”
It continued, “…it only remains to be added, that every restriction becomes more directly fatal when it operates on the moral part of our nature, – that if there is one thing more than another which absolutely requires free activity on the part of the individual, it is precisely education, whose object it is to develop the individual…”
Court’s findings
- The availability of finance is a point apart, and that should not affect the autonomy of the university.
- Therefore, the state, in our considered view, lacks locus standi to maintain an appeal of the kind.
- The additional government advocate is right in telling that the learned single judge should not have directed the state government to decide in respect of the university employee’s claim for regularisation of service.
- However, we do not see any pleadings taken up by the state government before the learned single judge in this regard.
Case of regularisation
The matter arose from a 2019 petition filed by an employee, Premraj Panda, whose claim for regularisation as a junior assistant had been rejected by the Department of Higher Education. A single judge had previously set aside the government’s rejection and ordered the university and the state authorities to pass appropriate orders for his regularisation. The State’s appeal against this order was filed after a delay of 305 days.
Representing the state, additional government advocate S K Jee submitted that throwing away the main matter on delay alone would not do justice to the cause.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates S Routray, B Singh, S Sekhar, J Biswal, M Panda, and S Swain submitted that the application be allowed and the delay be condoned. However, they vehemently opposed the matter on merits, contending that the state is not a person aggrieved and therefore, it does not have locus standi to maintain the appeal.
Share
