Nagpur High Court Intervenes in Census Duty Dispute for Private College Staff
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has provided significant interim relief by staying orders that directed faculty and staff of private unaided colleges to undertake Census duties. This decision, issued last week, raises critical questions about the legal authority behind such mandatory appointments and highlights concerns over academic disruptions.
Court Questions Authority and Issues Notices
A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta has taken a proactive stance by issuing notices to the Centre and the Maharashtra state government. The court has directed them to respond by April 24, 2024, regarding the legality of the directives. The interim order effectively halts the implementation of orders issued on April 5 and 6, which required immediate deployment of staff from a pharmacy college run by The Sikh Education Society for Census work, with threats of criminal action for noncompliance.
Legal Challenges and Precedents Cited
The petition, filed against these orders issued by a deputy municipal commissioner, argued that private unaided college employees cannot be mandatorily assigned Census duties. Petitioner's counsel, Purushottam Patil, cited precedents from the Delhi and Gujarat High Courts to contend that such appointments lack legal backing and could severely disrupt academic functioning. He emphasized that compelling faculty to participate in Census work during an ongoing academic schedule, particularly close to university examinations, would adversely affect students' education and preparation.
Criminal Cases and Procedural Concerns
The court was also informed that criminal cases had been initiated against some employees for failing to comply with the orders. Taking note of these submissions, the bench granted interim relief and observed that the issue of authority remains under consideration. It noted that available records do not clearly indicate whether the state government delegated such powers to the municipal authority in question. This lack of clarity forms a core part of the judicial scrutiny.
Statutory Arguments and Future Proceedings
The petitioner further argued that under the Census Act, 1948, officials entrusted with Census duties are appointed as Census officers, and a functionary holding the same rank cannot issue appointment orders to another officer of equivalent status. This contention formed a key part of the challenge to the legality of the directives. While refraining from a final ruling on merits, the court underscored the need to examine whether due procedure and statutory authority were followed before issuing such directives.
The interim stay will remain in force until further hearing, with the matter posted for further consideration on April 24. On that date, the Centre and the state are expected to clarify their positions on the legality and administrative basis of the contested orders, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases nationwide.
