Appeal against order withdrawing Vice-Chancellor appointment due to alleged quorum violation in selection committee meeting. Court held meeting valid with majority presence as no specific quorum provision exists. Appointment upheld.
Chancellor's order revoking appointment set aside; appellant declared validly appointed as Vice-Chancellor from 22nd June 1970.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
796
A
ISHWAR CHANDRA
v .
.SATYANARAIN SlNHA & ORS.
March 14, 1972
[K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.)
| _Universit;yofSaugarAct,_1946,s.13(2)-Comml•teeofthree to select pan\llofnames forposeofVice.Chancel/or-Only two members ofcom1nittee present at meeting toseleclpanel-Intheabsenceofany provision as to quorum the recommendationsofmajorityofmembers whoarepresenflat the meetingisvalid. From a panel of names recommendedbya Selection Cpmmittee eonstituted unders.13(2) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946 the then Chancellor of the University appointed the appellant"'Vice- Chancellor. Under Ordinaiu:e No. 1of1970 the GovernorofMadhya Pradesh!>camethe Chancellor of the Cniversity. Exercising bis powers of review under s. 43Aofthe Act the Governor, as Chancellor, after notice to the appellant, set aside bis appointmentasVice..Cbancellor on the ground that only two out of the three members of the Selection Committeewerepresent when bis namewasincluded in the panel.The appellantfileda writ petition in theHighCourt. TheHighCourt called furtoocorrespondence between the Chairmanofthe Committee and the member who was absent at themting.Onthelnsis.ofa Jetter written by the absentmembelrtothe Chairman, the High .Courtcame totheconclusionthatthe memberhadbeen deliberately kept outofthe meeting and held that the Chancellor was justified in the opinion formed byhim unders.43(A). Allowing the appeal, this 8ourt, HELD:(i) TheHighCourt sustained the order oftheChaI)cellor on grounds other than those relied uponbyhim in that order, [for dismissing the writ petition_inIimine]._The order madebythe Chancellor wasbased entirely on the legality of the meeting where only two of the three mpmbers were present. There was nothing to show thatthecorres- pondence was persuedl>ythe Chancellor. Further, the correspondence did not support the assumption in theHighCourt's order that the Chair- man. was trying to keep out any member from the meeting. [803 D-Gl • 1 (ii)'If for one ·reasonorthe other one of the members ofth!Com- mittee, after due notice, couldnotattend;itdid not makethemeeting of the others illegal. In such circumstances where therewasno rule or regulation or any other provision for fixing quorum inthepresenceof the majorityofthemember_swould constitute a valid meeting and matters considered thereat could notbeheldtobeinvalid.[80lHJ |
|---|
| C1VILAl'!'ELLATEJURISDICTION :CivilAppealNo.243of '1971. |
B
c
D
E
F
G
Appeal biy special leave from the judg!llent and order dated H September 3, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 256 of 1970.
JSHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 797
A C. K. baphtary, L. M. Singhvi, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K: R. Nagaraja, for the appellant.
B. Sen and/. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
S. S. Khandujd, S. K. Dhingra and Promod Swaroop for res~ B pondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the summary dismissal Of a Writ Petition filed by the appel!i;nt against the order cf the Chancellor of the Saugar Unic versity dated the 15th June 1970 by which his appointment ~s Vice-Chancellor of that University was cancelled.
It may at the outset be mentioned that the appointment of th~ Vice-Chancellor of the Saugar University is made by the Chancellor of that University under section 13 of the University of 0 Saugar Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from " panel of net less than three persons recommended by the Committee constituted under sub-section (2) of that section. The Committee to be constituted under sub-section (2) was to co.nsis1 of three persons, two of whom shall ])~ elected by the Executive Council by single transferable vote from amongst pe•·sons nt connected with the University or a College and the third shall b I. nominated by the Chancellor who was also empowered to appoint one of them as Chairman of the Committee. It is unnecessa · · to refer to other provisions of this section because these are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. It appears that under the above provisions a Committee to submit a panel of names for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for the University was duly F collstituted consisting of two persons elected by the . executive Committee of the University, namely, G. K. Shinde, Retired Chief Justice and Justice T. P. Naik of the Maciliya·Prade>h High Court while the third member Shri C. B. AgarWaIFRetired Judge of the Allahabad Hih Court was nominated by the Chancellor, Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia who also appointed G. K. Shinde as the. G Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman thereafter appears to have carried on a correspondence to fix a convenient place and time for the meeting, which was ultimately fixed at Indore on the 4th of Aoril 1970. Justice Naik was, however, unable to attend the meeting and in his absence the other two ·pe•sons, Shri Shinde and Shri. Aawal met a~ a Committee and submitted a panel of names from which the Chancellor apooinied the •appe1lant on 7th H April 1970 as a Vice Chancellor with effect friim. the 22nd June 1970. for a -period .·of five years. · The ari,,eilimt t 1.he. -tim c.f. t!:~ appointment, it seems, was acting as Vice-Chancellor.
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
798
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
On the 9th of April 1970, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, A Shri K. C .. Reddy · .promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 1970 . by section 2 of which s_ub-section ( 1) of section 11 was substituted by a new sub-sectio11 ( 1) whereunder the Governor of Madhya Pradesh was made an ex officio Chncellor of that University. By section 3, it was provided that as from the date of the coming into force of that Ordinance, the Chancellor in office immediately n before the date aforeiaid shall cease to hold office of the Chancellor and the Governor of Madhya Pradesh shall assume the said office. · By virtue of this Ordinance. Rajma!a Vijaya Raje Scindia ceased to be the Chancellor. On the 23rd April 1970, the Governor again passed another Ordinance by section 2 of which he substituted section 43 of the Act by a new section 43. By §ection c 3 a new section 43A was also added. Section 4 made the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 to ope,ate retrospecitvely as from the commencement of the original Act. The amended sections 43 and 43A are as foJJows :-
A
"43. If any question arises whether any person h"' been duly appointed, elected, nominated or coopted as, or is entitled to be, a memlt~r of any authority or other body of the University or any officer of the University, ihe matter shall be referred to the Chancellor wl]ose decision thereon shall be final.
D
43A. The Chancellor may, either on his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by himself or his predecessor in office if he is of the opinion that it is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the statutei, the Ordinance o;· the Regulations or is otherwise improper and pass such orders in reference thereto as he may think fit."
E
F
After the above Ordinances were promulgated, the Sec·etary to the Governor of Madhya Pradesh wrote on the 20th May 1970 to the appellant as follows :-
"The question has come up before the. Chancellor whether the meeting of the committee constituted by his predecessor under section 13 ( 2) of the Act held on 4th April 1970 at Indore at which only two members out of the three were present was legal, and whether the · recommendations made by the committee at that meeting were legally valid The Chancellor has been advised that tb.e meeting held on the 4th April with only two meQ!bers present and the decisions taken at the meeting were not legal. As a consequence, the orders issued by the University oftice dated 14th April would have to be rescinded.
G
H
ISllWAR CHANDRA v .. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy; J.) 79!
Before the Chancellor takes action in accordance with legal advice, he has desired that you should be asked if you have anything to state why such action s.hould not be taken. I am desired to request you to send your reply as early as possiple, and at the latest within a week".
(ii) direct that the committee be constituted for submission of panel in accordance with the provi;ions of section 13 of the said Act".
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
On the 19th September 1970 the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was also rejected. In the latcer order two facts had been stated which have been challenged as incorrect. The first one was that the Chairman had at first fixed Bhopal as the venue of the meeting and secQndly that as thl' working ViceChancellor of the University, the petitioner had accfl6s to all the documents relating to the meeting and his detailed reply given to the Chancellor was grounded 01n some of them. Though there ·is some justification in these contentions what has to be seen is whether the order rejecting the Writ Petition was justified, and if so, now that the order of the Chancellor has been impugneJ, L that order valid. It is clear from the Governor's impugned orde:· that the appellant's appointment was held to be invalid becmso only two .members of the Committee we:e present at the meet>ng. The High Cour~ while holding that in the absence of any provision in the relevant enactment or the rules or regulations made thereunder, a majority of members of a selection committee like ihe one in the case before them would constitute the quorum, however, presumed that the question for consideration of the Chancellor was not merely one relating to the existence of the quorum requisite for a valid meebng but something diffecent., On that a•sumption it examined the correspondence which ensued between the Chairman and Justice T. P. Naik to asce··ta1n whether in fact a valid meeting had been called. Ai;:cordjng to the leamed Judges, Justice Naik had written to the Clnh:ian to say that he, the Chairman, was determined to hoict the m ~etiiJg presumably in his absence, and, therefore, the High Couct thought' that if the Chan· cellar, acting under section 43A of lhe Act formed the opinton that the meeting held on that date was not legal, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie material for the formation of that opinion, reached by him after giving to the petitioner an opportunity to state why the action propose4 should not be taken.
The assumption in this order rejecting the Writ Petition is not warranted, firstly, because the correspondence does not show that there was any deliberate attempt made by the Chairman to ex' elude one of the members in this ca<e, Justice T. P. Naik, and secodly, that the Chancellor had, because of this exclusion, declared the meeting held on the 4th April 1970 as not beip.g valid 0 We have already pointed out that the Chancellor was merely concerned with the legality of the recommendation made by two out of three members and n()t th'at any attempi was made by the Chairman to exclude one of the members. Neither the show. cause notice, nor the reply given blV the appellant to that notice, nor even the O•der of the· Chancellor indiCates any such ground as that assµmed lw the Hih Cn,;,.,: to 'fmm th?. basi• of the Chl!II' cellor's. order. 'The corresp00dence shows thai the ChairmaT
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ISHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohah Reddy, 1.) 801
( 1972] 3 S.C.R.
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
of April at Indore in the Meeting Room of the University of Indore at 10.30 a.m." Hoping to hear from you b(y the return of post and with kind regards".
A
Before this letter reached to the tclegrnm received by him, Justice D Naik wrote a letter to Shinde as follows :- "I am in receipt of your telegram intimating to me that you have fixed the meeting to consider panel of names for Saugar .University on the 4th of April 1970, at 10.30 a.m. at Indore in the Indore University. c I regret my inability to be present at Indore on the date and time specified, though I may be 3ble to attend the meeting if the venue is changed to Bhopal.
It is very surprising that you should have fixed the meeting on the 4th of April at Indore, even though I had informed you by a telegram on the 17th ci March 1970, that it would not be possible for me to attend it there on that date. Anyway, knowing fuli weli that it would not be possible for me to be present at Indore at 10.30 a.m. on April 4, 1970, you seem determined to hold the meeting there presumably in my absence. I can only regret your decision. If you are still interested in having my pres¢nce for the meeting, you may fix it either on the 4th or the 11th April 1970 at Saugar or Bhopal, though Bhapal would be more convenient to me personally. I hope you have recovered from the effects of your illness biY now".
D
E
Ii
This letter shows that though Justice Naik knew about the illness of Shinde, he somehow seems to have assumed, and ii we may say so, without justification that Shinde was determined to hold it there presumably in his absence. On the 27th Ma-ch 1970, the next day, he however, after the receipt of the letter cf the 24th instant from Shinde did not take up the attitude that the meeting was being held presumably to keep him away from attending it. Justfoe Naik, however, tried to explain his difficulty. He said :-
"I am in receipt of your letter dated 24th March 1970. I am sorry to note that you have not yet recovere<! from the effects of your illness. I do hope you shall soon get well.
G
H
ISHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 8 Ol
As for my coming to Indore, I had c0nsidered the possibility of my going there by air from Bhopal. but I am informed that the journey is very bumpy these days due to weather conditions and I do get terribly sick if the journey is bumpy. I had, ther~ore, to·give up the idea of going by air, and as I cannot spare more than a day. B for the meeting, I had intimated to you that it would not . be possible for me to come to Lndore for the meeting scheduled for the 4th of April 1970 at 10.30 a.m. in Indore University.
As for your kindly suggestion that I may lfy: a letter suggest names to you for your consideration, I am of c opinion that it would not only not be fair to the perscms whose names I may suggest but also not be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Saugar University Act.
With kind regards".
[1972] 3 S.C.R..
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
This proposltion is well recognised and is also so stated in A Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Editi011 (Vol. IX, page 48, para 95). It is, therefore, unnecessary to refer to any decisions on the subject. In the view we have taken, the appeal is allowed with costs against respondent 3, the Order of the Chancellor revoking the appointment of the appellant is set aside and the appe'la.nt is declared to have been validly appointed as Vice-Chancellor o'. ll the Saugar University as from the 22nd June 1970.
A
G.C.
Appeal allowed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a meeting of a selection committee is valid if quorum is not fixed and only a majority of members are present.
Whether the absence of one member due to reasons beyond control renders the meeting illegal in absence of specific quorum rules.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ishwar Chandra
S. Sinha
P. Jaganmohan Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
