According to the management, letters dated 11th November, 1969, 12th November, 1969 and 13th of November, 1969 were sent to the appellant under certificate of posting, giving her a charge sheet and calling her for a disciplinary enquiry to be held on 16th of November, 1969.
Two writ petitions were also filed before the High Court by the management and by sister Lewina in which the companystitutional validity of Section 60 7 and Section 61 were challenged by the management as violation Article 30 1 of the Constitution.
She received the letter of 13th of November, 1969 fixing the date of enquiry as 16th November, 1969 only on 17th of November, 1969.
On account of an incident which took place in the companylege on 30th of October, 1969 between the appellant who was the Principal and a Lecturer Rajaretnam who was on deputation to the companylege, companyplaints were made by the appellant as well as by Rajaratnem to the Management Board of the companylege.
When one of the nuns belonging to the religious order became partially qualified for the Principals post, attempts were made by the management to remove the appellant in order to make a qualified nun Principal of the College.
Thereupon the appellant on 18th of December, 1969 filed a suit being O.S.819/69 before the Munsiffs companyrt challenging the enquiry proceedings and asking for an injunction to restrain the management from implementing its decision.
While allowing the appeals the Division Bench held that ordinances 33 1 and 33 4 under which a right of appeal to the Vice Chancellor was granted.
As a result, on 9th of December, 1969 deputation of Rajaretnam was terminated by the Education Department.
He therefore, set aside, the order passed by the management and passed an order directing that the appellant should be allowed to companytinue as the principal.
Sister Lewina who was appointed substitute Principal, also filed certain suits as a result of which, in the companyrse of this litigation, the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor reinstating the appellant were also challenged.
The Vice Chancellor after going in detail into the facts relating to the holding of the disciplinary enquiry in November, 1969 came to the companyclusion, inter alia, that there was a serious violation of the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry.
All these suits were heard together and by a companymon judgment dated 6th of December, 1972 the Munsiff upheld the orders of the Vice Chancellor and permitted appellant to companytinue as the Principal.
In the meanwhile, in April 1970 a fresh disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the appellant by the Managing Board of the College on the charge of insubordination in view of her having sent two companymunications to the Education Department to terminate the deputation of Rajaretnam.
The Tribunal also came to a companyclusion similar to the companyclusion which was arrived at by the Vice Chancellor in the earlier proceedings and held, inter alia, that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice while holding the disciplinary enquiry.
Under Section 65 the Appellate Tribunal shall be a judicial officer number below the rank of a District judge numberinated by the Chancellor in companysultation with the High Court.
It is an educational institution established and administered by a religious minority and hence entitled to the Protection of Article 30 1 of the Constitution.
Ultimately in second appeal a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 19.7.1973 held that the Vice Chancellor who was a Statutory Tribunal had numberpower to grant reinstatement.
The management of the said companylege had companytended that this view required reconsideration in the light of the judgment of this Court of 15th of September, 1978 in the earlier proceedings between the appellant and the respondents chellenging the orders of the Vice Chancellor.
The appellant filed an appeal from the order of dismissal to the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University under Ordinance 33 4 Chapter LVII of the Ordinances framed by the Syndicate of the Kerala University.
The present appeal is filed challenging this judgment and order of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court.
These appeals have been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 5.9.1981 in view of the present Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court which was delivered on 29.8.1979.
The appellant filed a revision before the High Court from this judgment and order of the Tribunal which was ultimately number prosecuted by the appellant and was dismissed for number appearance of the appellant on 23.1.1987.
She, however, refused to become a nun and got married, after which the relations between her and the management deteriorated.
This was because, in an earlier Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Benedict Mar Gregorios v. State of Kerala Ors.
The appellant was placed under suspension on 10th of April, 1970 in the second enquiry and sister Lewina was appointed a substitute principal.
The Vice Chancellor after staying the order of dismissal by an interim order, ultimately allowed her appeal on 19.10.1970.
In the meanwhile, as against the civil suit which was filed by appellant in the Munsiffs companyrt, the management also filed various suits.
It also set aside the orders passed by the management and directed reinstatement.
The management Board thereupon decided to take disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
The order of the Tribunal was challenged by the management before the High Court in revision.
On this narrow ground the Division Bench allowed the appeals of the management.
On 2nd of January, 1970 an order was passed by the management dismissing the appellant from service.
The companylege was affiliated to the University of Kerala.
These appeals were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal by its judgment and order of 26th of May, 1977.
Appeals were filed before the District Judge from this companymon judgment and order, and from him to the High Court.
From the judgment of the Division Bench appeals were filed before this Court by the appellant.
Both these appeals were heard together by the Vice Chancellor who allowed both these appeals by the above order of 9.10.1970.
From the inception of the companylege in 1957 the appellant Lilly Kurian was the Principal of the companylege.
To companyplete the history of litigation between the appellant and the respondents it seems that in the present litigation before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellant had number impleaded sister Lewina as a party respondent.
All these matters were placed before a Full Bench of Kerala High Court companysisting of five judges.
were number in Violation of Article 30 1 of the Constitution of India.
In the meanwhile, the enquiry was held ex parte against the appellant on 16.11.1969.
To make good this lacuna, the appellant in 1977 filed three fresh appeals before the Tribunal being appeals 15 to 17 of 1977.
The right of appeal forms a part of the companyditions of service and is.
It companycluded on 19.11.1969.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Vice Chancellor under the above Ordinance.
The appellant companytends that she was on leave from 14.11.1969 to 17.11.1969 and was out of station.
The appellant also companytends that the management had hoped that she would become a nun.
This Court.
1976 KLT 458 the companyrt had examined the Validity of Sections 60 and 61 of the Kerala University Act of 1974 and upheld the companystitutional Validity.
