1. Appointment of college principal — Scrutiny of appointments under statutory amendment — Dispute over minimum academic qualifications and validity of administrative orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Jagdish Pandey, Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor, University of Bihar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1966,
D/- 17-8-1967.
Advocates:
A.K.NAG, B.C.GHOSH, K.K.SINHA, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.MUSTAFI
A.K.NAG, B.C.GHOSH, K.K.SINHA, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.MUSTAFI
A deeming provision equating a teacher's actual qualifications to the minimum required for their post, if intended as a protective measure for those confirmed before a certain date, extends to future promotions and appointments to higher grades.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - State Universities (Amendment) Act - Section 4 - Validity of legislative classification - Arbitrariness of dates - Uncanalised power - Natural justice - The fixing of specific dates to scrutinize appointments made during a transition period is not arbitrary if there is a nexus with the object of preventing irregularities (Para 7). A provision authorizing an authority to pass orders on the recommendation of a commission must be read down to mean that the scrutiny is for ensuring compliance with the University Act and Statutes, both substantively and procedurally, rather than conferring naked arbitrary power (Para 8). Principles of natural justice are implicit in the requirement for a recommendation by a commission, and any order passed without such a hearing would be void (Para 9).
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Fresh order vs. Modification - An order passed without a hearing is defective; however, if a subsequent hearing is provided and a new order is passed, it should be treated as a fresh order rather than a modification of the void order, thereby curing the initial defect (Para 12).
(C) University Statutes - Qualifications for appointment - Deeming provision - A provision stating that qualifications of teachers confirmed before a certain date are considered equivalent to the minimum qualifications for the post they hold acts as a protective fiction. This deemed qualification is not limited to the post held at the time of the provision's enactment but enures to the benefit of the teacher for all future purposes, including promotion or appointment to higher grades in other colleges (Paras 14, 15).
Facts of the case:
An appellant, confirmed as a lecturer before a specified date, was appointed as a Principal. A subsequent legislative amendment allowed the scrutiny of appointments made within a specific window. The authority, after conducting a hearing, ordered the appellant to obtain a higher degree or face termination, citing a lack of the minimum required qualification. The appellant challenged this, contending that a deeming provision in the university statutes granted him the equivalent minimum qualification for the post of Principal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legislative amendment was valid and not discriminatory under Article 14. It further held that the deeming provision regarding qualifications for teachers confirmed before a certain date was intended to protect their interests permanently, meaning the deemed minimum qualification applies to future promotions and appointments.
Issues: Whether the legislative provision for scrutinizing appointments was ultra vires Article 14; whether the order requiring additional qualifications was passed in violation of natural justice; and whether a deeming provision for minimum qualifications applies to future promotions to higher posts.
Ratio Decidendi: A deeming provision that equates the actual qualifications of a teacher confirmed before a certain date to the minimum qualifications for the post held is a protective measure. This equivalence is not restricted to the specific post held at the time of the provision's enactment but extends to future appointments and promotions to higher grades.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of statutory provision under Article 14 — Violation of natural justice — Interpretation of deeming provision regarding minimum academic qualifications for promotion. (Para 6 )
3. Statutory dates not arbitrary — Power of Chancellor to be read down as scrutiny for legality — Deeming provision confers permanent qualification for future appointments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 )
4. Deeming provisions safeguarding qualifications of teachers confirmed before a specific date create a permanent equivalence applicable to future promotions and appointments. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Order requiring additional qualification or termination quashed. (Para 16 )
6. Can a statute be struck down under Article 14 for specifying specific dates for the application of a provision?
No, if the dates are not arbitrary and have a rational nexus with the object to be achieved, such as the timing of a committee report or the discovery of irregularities, the provision is valid. (Para 7 )
7. How should a statutory provision conferring broad, uncanalised powers on an authority be interpreted to avoid being struck down as arbitrary?
Such provisions can be read down to mean that the authority's power is limited to ensuring that the actions under scrutiny are in accordance with the governing Act, statutes, ordinances, and regulations. (Para 8 )
8. Is a hearing required before a commission makes a recommendation that may lead to an adverse administrative order?
Yes, the principles of natural justice are implicit; the recommending body must hear the affected person before making a recommendation to the deciding authority to ensure the order is not bad in law. (Para 9 , 12 )
9. Does a deeming provision treating a teacher's qualifications as equivalent to the minimum for the post they hold apply only to that specific post?
No, such a provision is intended to protect the interests of teachers confirmed before a certain date, conferring a deemed qualification that remains valid for all future purposes, including promotions or appointments to higher grades. (Para 14 , 15 )
Judgement
WANCHOO, CJI. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Patna High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The appellant, Jagdish Pandey, joined as a lecturer in Ramakrishna College Madhubani in July 1948. His appointment was approved by the University in June, 1949, and on September 23, 1951 he was confirmed as a lecturer in that College. In July 1961 the post of the Principal of Pandaul College Pandaul fell vacant and was advertised. The appellant was one of the applicants and was appointed after interview as the Principal of the college on January 22, 1962. On January 24, 1962, the appellant s appointment as Principal of the College was approved by the University. It appears that the appointment was challenged by a writ petition before the Patna High Court, but that challenge failed on July 11, 1962, when the petition was dismissed.
2. In the meantime, the Bihar legislature passed the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act, No. 13 of 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which came into force on April 21, 1962. Section 4 thereof was in the following terms :-
"Certain appointments, etc. of teacher of non-Govermnent affiliated colleges to be subject to Chancellor s orders - Notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or the Magadh University Act, 1961 (Bihar Act IV of 1962) or the statutes made thereunder, or the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Ordinance, 1962, (Bihar Ordinance No. 1 of 1962) every appointment, dismissal, removal, termination of service or reduction in rank of any teacher of a college, not belonging to the State Government, affiliated to the University established under the said Act, or the Magadh University Act, 1961 (Bihar Act IV of 1962) made on or after the twenty-seventh day of November, 1961 and before the first day of March, 1962, shall be subject to such order as the Chancellor of the University may, on the recommendation of the University Service Commission established under Section 48-A of the said Act, pass with respect thereto."
3. This Act was passed to amend the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, No.14 of 1960. The reason for making the amendment as stated in the statement of objects and reasons was this. The Bihar State Universities Act, No. 14 of 1960, was amended by Bihar Act II of 1962 and S. 48-A was introduced therein. That Section provided for the establishment of a University Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for affiliated colleges not belonging to the State Government. Sub-section (6) of S. 48-A provided that "subject to the approval of the University, appointments, dismissals, removals, termination of service or reduction in rank of teachers of an affiliated college not belonging to the State Government shall be made by the governing body of the college on the recommendation of the Commission." In effect thereafter no appointment, dismissal, etc., could be made after S.48-A came into force without the recommendation of the Commission. This Section came into force on March 1, 1962, but the report of the Joint Select Committee, which resulted in the enactment of S.48-A,was made on November 27,1961. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act stated that several reports had been received by Government that the Governing Bodies of affiliated colleges had made a very large number of unnecessary appointments and unwarranted removals from service in order to avoid scrutiny of such cases by the Commission. It was to meet this situation that an Ordinance was first promulgated which made obligatory for the Governing Bodies to submit for the scrutiny of the Commission, the cases of appointments, dismissals, removals etc. of teachers which occurred between November 27, 1961 and March 1, l962. The Act replaced that Ordinance.
4. After the Act came into force, the appellant received an order dated August 18, 196
