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

1967 Supreme(SC) 221

R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, K. S. HEGDE, K. N. WANCHOO, G. K. MITTER
Jagdish Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, University Of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.NAG, B.C.GHOSH, K.K.SINHA, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.MUSTAFI

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-



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The references to the case of Jagdish Pandey (AIR 1968 SC 353) appear repeatedly, suggesting it is a frequently cited precedent, but there is no direct indication that any subsequent decision has explicitly overruled or criticized it within the provided excerpts. Without explicit language such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved," it is not possible to definitively categorize any case as bad law based solely on this list.

Several cases, such as those citing "Jagdish Pandey v. ... AIR 1968 SC 353," appear to rely on or follow this decision. For example:

Heramba Kumar Sarma and etc. etc VS State of Assam and others - 1989 0 Supreme(Gau) 171, Hemanta Kumar Sarma ; T. C. Agarwalla ; All Assam Motor Transport Association ; Md. Abdul Rahim Khan ; Abdul Matin Khan VS State of Assam - 1990 0 Supreme(Gau) 185, Jan Mohd. VS The State of Rajasthan - 1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 196, Premium Granites VS State of T. N. - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 168, Suren Chandra Das VS State of Assam - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 148, Suren Ch. Das VS State of Assam - 2005 0 Supreme(Gau) 311, LABOUR BAR ASSOCIATION SATNA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 813, Rajendra Prasad Sharma VS State - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 239, and others mention reliance or reference to AIR 1968 SC 353, indicating these cases treat it as good law and follow its principles.

The repeated referencing of the case in various contexts (e.g., constitutional challenge, powers of authorities, legislative interpretation) suggests the case is still considered authoritative and good law.

Some entries mention reading down or exercising powers "as has been done in Jagdish Pandey v. ..." (e.g., Heramba Kumar Sarma and etc. etc VS State of Assam and others - 1989 0 Supreme(Gau) 171), which indicates these cases interpret or distinguish the principles from the AIR 1968 decision rather than criticizing it.

Cases like JOSEPH K. FRANCIS VS VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 248, Arjun Singh VS Union Of India - 1976 0 Supreme(P&H) 89, Ishwar Das Murlidhar VS State Of Bihar - 1983 0 Supreme(Pat) 125, and Government Of India Represented By Secretary Ministry Or Finance VS Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board Mills Tiruchtrapalli - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 730 mention the case of Jagdish Pandey but do not provide enough context to determine whether they treat it as good law, follow it, or criticize it. Their treatment remains ambiguous based on the excerpts.

Similarly, references to "reliance" or "reference" without explicit treatment language leave their stance uncertain.

JOSEPH K. FRANCIS VS VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY - 1973 0 Supreme(Ker) 248

Arjun Singh VS Union Of India - 1976 0 Supreme(P&H) 89

Ishwar Das Murlidhar VS State Of Bihar - 1983 0 Supreme(Pat) 125

Government Of India Represented By Secretary Ministry Or Finance VS Dhanalakshmi Paper And Board Mills Tiruchtrapalli - 1988 0 Supreme(SC) 730

Heramba Kumar Sarma and etc. etc VS State of Assam and others - 1989 0 Supreme(Gau) 171

Hemanta Kumar Sarma ; T. C. Agarwalla ; All Assam Motor Transport Association ; Md. Abdul Rahim Khan ; Abdul Matin Khan VS State of Assam - 1990 0 Supreme(Gau) 185

Jan Mohd. VS The State of Rajasthan - 1992 0 Supreme(Raj) 196

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS D. T. C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 493

LABOUR BAR ASSOCIATION SATNA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - 2008 0 Supreme(MP) 813

Rajendra Prasad Sharma VS State - 2013 0 Supreme(Raj) 239

Rajaram Gurjar VS State of Rajasthan - 2020 0 Supreme(Raj) 240

These cases mention the case of AIR 1968 SC 353 or the principles derived from it, but do not clarify whether they treat it as good law, follow it, or criticize it. Therefore, their treatment remains ambiguous based on the provided information.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top