{"id":294,"date":"2015-12-15T08:36:07","date_gmt":"2015-12-15T08:36:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/demo.awaikenthemes.com\/justiq\/law-firm\/?p=294"},"modified":"2026-08-23T12:00:22","modified_gmt":"2026-08-23T12:00:22","slug":"steps-to-resolve-tenant-disputes-steps-to","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/?p=294","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University & Ors."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra appeared as part of the legal team representing the respondents, including S.R.M. University<\/strong>, before the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. S.R.M. University & Ors.<\/em>, reported in AIR 2016 SC 73<\/strong> and (2015) 16 SCC 530<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Representation Before the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The matter was heard as a Civil Appeal arising from proceedings before the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court record identifies Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra as part of the counsel team appearing for the respondents, along with Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate<\/strong>, and other counsel. The respondent side included S.R.M. University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nature of the Dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute arose from the termination of Dr. Janet Jeyapaul, who had been working as a Lecturer and was subsequently promoted as a Senior Lecturer at S.R.M. University.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following disciplinary proceedings, the University issued a notice treating one month as notice and stating that her services would be relieved. Dr. Jeyapaul challenged the action before the Madras High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Single Judge allowed her writ petition and directed reinstatement. The Division Bench, however, allowed the University’s appeal and held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the University was neither \u201cState\u201d nor an \u201cauthority\u201d within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Dr. Jeyapaul then approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Role of Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s verified role in the Supreme Court proceedings was as a member of the counsel team representing the respondents. The Supreme Court judgment specifically records that the respondents were represented by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment does not separately attribute any particular submission or argument to Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra by name. The substantive submissions recorded for the respondents are attributed to Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde. Accordingly, no individual legal argument is attributed to Mr. Mishra beyond his verified participation as counsel for the respondent side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issue Considered by the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The principal legal question before the Supreme Court was whether S.R.M. University, a deemed university engaged in imparting higher education, was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court held that the University’s activities involved the discharge of a public function and that its status as a deemed university under Section 3 of the UGC Act was relevant to determining its legal position. The Court therefore held that the writ petition against the University was maintainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court and restored the writ appeal for consideration on merits. The Court clarified that it had confined its examination to the maintainability of the writ petition and had not decided the underlying employment dispute on merits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s role in the matter is therefore accurately recorded as Counsel for the Respondents and member of the legal team representing S.R.M. University before the Supreme Court<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra appeared as part of the legal team representing […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4073,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2,4,5],"class_list":["post-294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-advice","tag-defense","tag-justice"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Messrs-Tashi-Delek-Gaming-Solutions-Limited-and-Another-v.-State-of-Karnataka-and-Others.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=294"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3587,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294\/revisions\/3587"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4073"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}