SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 326

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ,
Dinnapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University, Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, Osmania University and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2313 of 1966,
D/- 9-12-1966.
Advocates appeared
M/s. M. C. Setalvad and D. Narasaraju, Senior Advocates (M/s. Anwar Ullah Pasha, R. V. Pillai and M. M. Kshatriya Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General of India, and Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Senior Advocates, (M/s. S. Ramachandra Reddy and T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocates, with them), for Respondents.

Advocates:
ANVARLALLA PASHA, D.NARASARAJU, M.C.SETALVAD, M.M.KSHATRIYA, NIREN DEY, P.RAM REDDY, R.V.PILLAI, S.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, T.V.R.TATACHARI

Headnote:TEST OF PERMISSIVE CLASSIFICATION

       

Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : This appeal, by special leave, granted by this Court, is directed against the order, dated October 13, 1966, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dismissing Writ Petition No. 853 of 1966, filed by the appellant, under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

2. The appellant filed the said writ petition under the following circumstances. The appellant was the Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University, having been appointed, as such, by order, dated April 30, 1964, passed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, in his capacity as Chancellor of the said University. The appointment of the appellant, under the said order, as Vice-Chancellor, there is not controversy, was for a term of five years from the date of taking charge; and the appointment itself was made under sub-s. (1) of S. 12 of the Osmania University Act, 1959 (Andhra Pradesh Act No. IX of 1959). There is, again, no controversy that the appellant took charge as Vice-Chancellor, in terms of the said order, on April 30, 1964 and, as such, he became entitled to hold office for the full period of five years, which will expire at the end of April 1969.

3. The Osmania University was established in 1918 and the administration of the University was then governed by a Charter of His Exalted Highness, the Nizam of Hyderabad, promulgated in 1947. With effect from November 1, 1956, the State of Hyderabad ceased to exist, and the Telengana region of that State became part of Andhra Pradesh. In 1959, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Osmania University Act, 1959, earlier referred to. That Act itself was one to amend and consolidate the law relating to the Osmania University. It is only necessary to note, at this stage, that under S. 12 (1) of the said Act, it was provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of not less than three persons selected by a Committee, as constituted under sub-s. (2); but, if the Chancellor does not approve any of the persons so selected, he may call for a fresh panel from the Committee. Section 13, again, provided for the term of office, salary and allowances, etc., of the Vice-Chancellor. Under sub-s (1), the term of officer of the Vice-Chancellor was fixed for a term of five years and there was also a further provision to the effect that he shall be eligible for re-appointment.

4. By S. 51 of the said Act, the Osmania University Revised Charter of 1947 was repealed : but, nevertheless, it was provided that the person holding office immediately before the commencement of the Act as Vice-Chancellor, was to be the Vice-Chancellor on such commencement of the Act, and was to continue to hold the said office, in circumstances mentioned therein.

5. There is, again, no controversy that the appellant, who was already the Vice-Chancellor of the Osmania University form 1957, was again appointed in 1959, as Vice-Chancellor for a period of five years under this Act; and he was similarly appointed for a further term of five years, on April 13, 1964, as Vice-Chancellor, as mentioned earlier. During the middle of 1965, certain amendments were sought to be introduced in the Act by providing for removal of the Vice-Chancellor, by the Chancellor, form office under certain circumstances. There was also a proposal to reduce the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor from 5 years to 3 years, from the date of his appointment, and for provisions being made enabling the Government to give directions to the University relating to matter of policy to be followed by it.

6. The amendment sought to be introduced in the Act, appear to have come in for considerable criticism from several quarters, and these have been elaborately dealt with in the order under attack. According to the appellant, he was one of those who very strenuously opposed the proposed amendments on the ground that the autonomy of the University was sought to be interfered with by the Government. According to the appellant, again, the various criticisms made





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top