1981 Supreme(Pat) 31

PATNA HIGH COURT
Birendra Prasad Sinha and M.P.Varma JJ.
Saraswati Mishra
Versus
Chancellor, Universities Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1884 of 1980 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 02, 1981

The Chancellor of a University does not have inherent jurisdiction to review his own quasi-judicial order, especially when there is no change in the circumstances of the case, and review of an earlier order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY - CHANCELLOR - REVIEW OF QUASI-JUDICIAL ORDER - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - LIMITATION - REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATION BY PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - JURISDICTION OF CHANCELLOR - Bihar University Act, 1976 - Section 9(4) - Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 - Section 24.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a lecturer in philosophy at Doranda College, Ranchi, challenged the validity of the recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for the appointment of a lecturer in philosophy at Ranchi University. The petitioner's father, who was the Head of the Department of Philosophy and Reader in the University, had expressed his inability to act as an internal expert in the interview process due to his strained relationship with another professor, Dr. P. B. Vidyarthi, who was also an applicant for the post. The petitioner apprehended that Dr. Vidyarthi's involvement in the interview process would result in injustice to her. Despite the petitioner's father's request to the BPSC and the University to appoint another expert, Dr. Vidyarthi was appointed as an internal expert. The petitioner's representation to the then Chancellor of the University challenging the validity of the recommendation was upheld, and the Chancellor directed the Syndicate to select another expert and request the BPSC to interview the candidates again. However, the Syndicate subsequently passed a resolution seeking a review of the Chancellor's order, and the present Chancellor reviewed the order and approved the BPSC's earlier recommendation.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Chancellor of a University does not have inherent jurisdiction under the University Act to review his own order, especially when there is no change in the circumstances of the case. 2. Review of an earlier order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice. 3. The recommendation made by the BPSC was valid only for a period of one year and had lapsed at the time of the Chancellor's review order.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chancellor of a University can review his own quasi-judicial order, particularly when there is no change in the circumstances of the case. 2. Whether review of an earlier order without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the Chancellor has the jurisdiction to review the recommendation made by the BPSC after the lapse of one year.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the Chancellor to act is given under Section 9(4) of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, which empowers the Chancellor to annul any proceeding of the University that is not in conformity with the Act, the statutes, the Ordinances, or the Regulations. However, this power is subject to the requirement of giving a show cause notice to the University and considering any cause shown. This implies that the Chancellor must make an inquiry and apply his judicial mind, which makes the power conferred upon the Chancellor under Section 9(4) a quasi-judicial power. 2. The principles of natural justice require that a party who may be directly or indirectly affected by an order has a right to be heard before the order is made. This is to ensure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice. 3. Under Section 58(3) of the University Act, recommendations made by the BPSC are valid only for a period of one year. In this case, the recommendation had lapsed due to the efflux of time, and the Chancellor had no jurisdiction to review the same.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the Chancellor's order reviewing the earlier order and directed the Syndicate and the University to take action and proceed in accordance with law.