Mala fide remarks against Executive Council members and imposed costs were expunged and quashed.

The petitioners, members of the Executive Council of the University, invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal’s order dated 12 April 2012–3 May 2012 in Application No. 2 of 2009.

They were aggrieved by the Tribunal’s use of the term “malafide” in its operative order and by the imposition of costs of ₹1,500 on each petitioner in favour of the respondent-employees.

During the proceedings, the respondent University and respondent No. 1 stated that they had no objection to expunging the remarks and setting aside the costs, while clarifying that the reinstatement and back-wages direction would remain unaffected.

The petitioners thereafter confined their relief to removal of the remarks and quashing of the costs.

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine and grant appropriate relief against the impugned Tribunal order.

The Court applied the principle that adverse remarks or strictures against public or institutional office-bearers may be expunged where the affected parties seek their removal and the relevant parties consent, without disturbing independent substantive directions contained in the order.

It also applied the principle that relief may be limited to the specific portions of an order found objectionable, leaving the remainder operative.

The petitioners’ grievance was confined to the adverse characterization “malafide” and the personal costs imposed upon them, rather than the Tribunal’s directions regarding reinstatement and back-wages.

Since respondent No. 1 had already consented to expunging the remarks and setting aside the costs, and the University raised no objection to the same relief, the Court found no impediment to granting the limited relief sought.

The Court therefore severed the objectionable term and the costs from the Tribunal’s order, while expressly preserving the remainder of the order, including the reinstatement and back-wages directions.

The Court further clarified that the separate challenge concerning respondent No. 1’s requisite qualifications would be decided independently and would not be prejudiced by the present judgment.

The remaining portions of the Tribunal’s order, including the directions relating to reinstatement and back-wages, were left unaltered.

The connected civil applications for stay and direction were disposed of, and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.