1. Challenge to the validity of statutes and an order reconstituting the Governing Body of an admitted college under the Bihar State Universities Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Bishweshwar Dayal Sinha, Appellant
Versus
University of Bihar and others, Respondents.
1. University of Bihar, 2 Jagat Narain Sharma Interveners.
Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate, M/s. R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh, S. C. Aggarwal and M. K. Ramamurthy, Advocates, of M/s. Ramamurthy and Co., for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India, (Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4; M/s S. C. Aggarwal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthy Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthy and Co., for Respondent No. 5; Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate, (M/s. S. L. Chhibber and B. P. Jha, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 8; Mr. D. Goburdhun, Advocate, for Respondent No. 16; Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, for Intervener No. 1: M/s. Dipak Datta Chaudhuri and A. K. Nag, Advocates, for Intervener No. 2.
A University cannot directly constitute, dissolve, or nominate members of the Governing Body of an affiliated/admitted college, as such power exceeds its supervisory authority and violates the autonomy of the sponsoring body, although it may prescribe general conditions for affiliation.
Headnote:(A) Bihar State Universities Act - Sections 2(d), 4(10), 30(d), 30(e), and 60(ii); Act II of 1962 - Section 35 - Distinction between colleges maintained by a University and those admitted to it - Power of University to manage its own institutions versus supervisory power over affiliated institutions - A University has the power to institute, maintain, and manage colleges it establishes, but in the case of admitted or affiliated colleges, its role is limited to recognition and the imposition of reasonable conditions for affiliation (Paras 5, 14).
(B) Statutory Validity - Power to prescribe conditions for affiliation is distinct from the power to directly constitute the Governing Body of an autonomous educational institution - The University may insist on the observance of conditions regarding the composition of the Governing Body, but it cannot direct the composition itself or nominate members to such a body (Para 14).
(C) Ultra Vires - Any statute that purports to authorize the executive head of a University to amend or revise the constitution of an admitted college, or empowers the University's governing body to dissolve and reconstitute the Governing Body of such a college, is inconsistent with the parent Act and is therefore invalid (Paras 15, 17).
Facts of the case:
An individual serving as the Secretary of the Governing Body of an admitted college challenged an order issued by the executive head of the University directing the reconstitution of the college's Governing Body and nominating specific members. The order was based on new statutes which granted the executive head the power to revise the constitution of admitted colleges and empowered the University's Syndicate to dissolve and reconstitute such Governing Bodies. The High Court had previously upheld the validity of these statutes and the resulting order.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statutes granting the power to amend the constitution of an admitted college and to dissolve its Governing Body were invalid as they obliterated the legal distinction between colleges maintained by the University and those merely affiliated with it. Consequently, the order issued under these invalid statutes, which included the nomination of specific persons to the Governing Body, was held to be invalid and inoperative.
Issues: Whether the statutes empowering the University to amend the constitution of an admitted college or to dissolve and reconstitute its Governing Body were valid under the parent Act, and whether the subsequent order of reconstitution was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The parent Act creates a clear distinction between collegiate institutions instituted by the University and those admitted to it. While the University is responsible for the management of its own institutions, the management of affiliated colleges remains the concern of the autonomous bodies that sponsor them. The University's authority over affiliated colleges is limited to setting general conditions for affiliation; it cannot exercise direct management powers, such as nominating members to a Governing Body, without violating the autonomy of the sponsoring body and the provisions of the Act (Paras 14, 15).
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether statutes empowering the Vice-Chancellor to revise the constitution and dissolve the Governing Body of admitted colleges are ultra vires the parent Act. (Para 1 , 11 )
3. The University cannot directly manage or constitute the Governing Body of autonomous affiliated colleges, distinguishing them from institutions instituted and maintained by the University. (Para 5 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Statutes empowering a University to directly reconstitute the Governing Body of an affiliated college are ultra vires if the Act only permits setting affiliation conditions. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed; the order reconstituting the Governing Body and the supporting statutes declared invalid and inoperative. (Para 21 )
6. What is the legal distinction between colleges admitted to a University and those maintained by it regarding management?
Maintained colleges are instituted and managed by the University. Admitted colleges are started by autonomous bodies; the University can impose reasonable conditions for affiliation and withdraw recognition but cannot directly constitute or manage their Governing Bodies. (Para 5 , 14 )
7. Can a University frame statutes allowing the Vice-Chancellor to amend the constitution or reconstitute the Governing Body of an affiliated college?
No. Such power is inconsistent with the statutory distinction between admitted and maintained colleges. While the University may prescribe general conditions for affiliation, the direct nomination of members or reconstitution of the Governing Body is ultra vires. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Is it legally permissible for a University to cancel grant-in-aid because an affiliated college refuses to reconstitute its Governing Body as directed?
No. Because the power to dissolve and reconstitute the Governing Body of an affiliated college is invalid, using the cancellation of grant-in-aid as a penalty for non-compliance with such an invalid direction is also invalid. (Para 17 )
9. Does the existence of mismanagement or a law-and-order emergency justify the exercise of powers that are ultra vires the parent Act?
No. While the interests of students are paramount and emergencies may necessitate action, such power must be derived from the Act. Bona fide intent does not validate an action based on a statute that is ultra vires. (Para 18 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.
The writ petition from which this appeal by special leave arises had been filed by the appellant Bisheshwar Dayal Sinha by which he challenged the validity of the order issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar University directing the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra and of the relevant new statutes framed by him under which the said order is purported to have been issued. His case was that the relevant new statutes are ultra vires the authority of the Vice-Chancellor and the impugned order passed by him in pursuance of the said relevant statutes is, therefore, illegal, inoperative and void. Along with the petition filed by the appellant, four other petitions had been filed by the other persons seeking to obtain a similar relief. The Patna High Court has, in substance, rejected the appellant s case and has accordingly dismissed the appellant s writ petition as well as the other petitions filed by other persons. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Setalvad has contended that the view taken by the Patna High Court about the validity of the relevant statutes is not sustainable and that the said statutes are ultra vires with the inevitable consequence that the impugned order directing the reconstitution of the Governing Body of the Rajendra College must also be held to be invalid.
2. The Rajendra College is an educational institution which has been admitted by the Bihar University as a College, as defined in Section 2(d) of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act (Bihar Act XIV of 1960) (hereinafter called the Act ) read with Article 1 of Chapter XII of the Statutes framed under the Act. The said college is a public institution founded by public charities and is conducted under the management of a Governing Body. The first Governing Body of the College was formed by the citizens of Chapra who had assembled for that purpose in a meeting on the 31st July, 1938. The Governing Body thus constituted consisted of 18 members; if continued to function until the 24th July, 1940, with addition in the personnel made from time to time by co-option. Later, in 1941, the Governing Body adopted a constitution framed by the Principal of the College at its request and that constitution governed the administration of the college. In due course, some further amendments were made in 1950. After the passing of the UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR ACT , 1951 (Bihar Act XXVII of 1951) and the framing of Chapter XIII of the Statutes under the said Act, the University suggested to the Governing Body to bring its constitution in line with the provisions of Chapter XIII of the said Statutes. Accordingly, modifications were made in the constitution, and the constitution thus modified and amended from time to time was in operation at the relevant time.
3. The appellant had been elected Secretary to the Governing Body on the 3rd of June, 1961, and under the relevant rules of the constitution, his term of office was to be three academic sessions, and as such, it was to last until 31st May, 1964. Meanwhile, by the impugned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on the 13th January, 1963, the appellant has been removed from his position as Secretary and another person has been appointed in his place. That is the reason why the appellant moved the Patna High Court for appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order and the relevant statutes on which it purports to be based. To his writ petition, the appellant impleaded 18 persons amongst them being respondent No. 1, the University of Bihar, respondent No. 2 Mr. Srivastava, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bihar, and respondent No. 3, the Chancellor of the University of Bihar.
4. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant in the present appeal, it is necessary to refer briefly to the relevant statutory provisions governing the affairs of the University of Bihar and its constituent colleges. The first
