1. The main question involved in these cases is,

‘Whether the power exercised by the Kuladhipati under sub-section (4) of section 12 {12(4)} of Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (the Act) is quasi-judicial or administrative in nature.’

It arises in these writ appeals against the order of the single judge dated 04.07.2007 dismissing the Writ Petition-1097 of 2005, filed by Dr Bhagwant Singh (Dr Singh) and Writ Petition-22 of 2005 filed by Dr PV Chandrakar (Dr Chandrakar), against the order of the Kuladhipati dated 24.12.2004.

THE FACTS

2. Pt Ravi Shankar Shukla University (the University) advertised for the post of Professor in the Department of Comparative Religion and Philosophy on 24.09.2002. The Appellants were candidates in the selection.

3. The selection committee recommended the names of Dr Chandrakar and Dr Singh, placing them at serial No-1 and 2 respectively in order of merit.

4. The Executive Council approved the recommendation of selection committee and as Dr Chandrakar was at serial No. 1, he was appointed on 20.09.2003.

5. Against the appointment of Dr Chandrakar, Dr Singh filed a representation before the Kuladhipati of the University under section 12(4) of the Act challenging his (Dr Chandrakar's) appointment. In the representation it was also prayed that he should be appointed in his place.

6. On the representation of Dr Singh, initially, the Kuladhipati asked the University to file its reply and after considering the same, referred the matter to the Commissioner, Higher Education Department (the Commissioner) for conducting an enquiry.

7. The Commissioner issued a notice to Dr Chandrakar to file his reply. After considering the reply of Dr Chandrakar and the University, the Commissioner submitted his report on 22.07.2004.

8. Dr Chandrakar filed an additional reply before the Kuladhipati on 08.11.2004. The Kuladhipati after considering the additional reply as well as the report of the Commissioner, held the selection to be vitiated on 01.01.2005 on the ground that all relevant materials were not placed before the selection committee and some were suppressed by Dr Chandrakar.

9. On the aforesaid finding, the representation of Dr Singh was partly allowed. The appointment of Dr Chandrakar was set aside and the Executive Council was directed to hold fresh interview in accordance with law on 24.12.2004. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the Kuladhipati, the Registrar cancelled the appointment of Dr Chandrakar.

10. Dr Chandrakar filed Writ Petition-22 of 2005 challenging the order of the Kuladhipati cancelling his appointment. Dr Singh also filed Writ Petition 1097 of 2005 for a direction to appoint him as he was at serial number-2.

11. Both the writ petitions were heard together and were dismissed by the single judge on 04.07.2007.

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Dr Chandrakar and Dr Singh filed Writ Appeals-249 of 2007 and 190 of 2007.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

13. We have heard counsel for the parties and the Advocate General as friend of the Court. The following points arise for determination in these appeals :

(i) Whether the power exercised by the Kuladhipati under section 12(4) of the Act is quasi-judicial or administrative in nature;

(ii) Whether the Kuladhipati, While exercising power under section 12(4) of the Act is a Tribunal under supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution;

(iii) Whether the writ petitions were under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution;

(iv) Whether the writ appeal is maintainable or not.

1ST POINT: KULADHIPATI'S POWER IS QUASI-JUDICIAL

14. Section 12 of the Act is titled 'Kuladhipati and his powers’. Section 12(4) of the Act empowers the Kuladhipati to annul any proceedings of any officer, authority, committee or body of the University constituted by or under the Act by an order in writing if it is not in conformity with the Act, Statute, Ordinances or the Regulations.

15. The proviso to section 12(4) also mandates that the Kuladhipati is required to