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

1995 Supreme(Guj) 460

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :R.K.Abichandani
HARSHADRAI SHANTILAL SHAH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 6047 of 1995
Decided On : 12/07/1995

Advocates Appeared: DHAVAL C.DAVE, H.M.MEHTA, J.R.Nanavati, VASAVDATTA BHATT, VIJAY H.PATEL, Y.S.LAKHANI

Headnote:(a) Saurashtra University Act, 1965 - Sec. 15 - Authorities of University prescribed under - Nature of - They are statutorily constituted and expected to exercise their statutory powers as collective bodies - Govt. has no direct control over them - Argument that they are expected to represent the policies of State Government not acceptable.It was urged that the persons nominated as members to the Senate by the State Government are expected to represent the policies of the State Government. This submission is contrary to the very scheme of the Act. The authorities of the University prescribed under Sec. 15 of the Act are statutorily constituted, and expected to exercise their statutory powers as collective bodies. There is no direct governmental control over them in connection with the discharge of their functions. The members who are required to be nominated by the State Government to the Senate are supposed to represent the class of distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and similar other classes. They are not required to represent any policy of the State Government in the functioning of the University. The idea behind empowering the State Government to nominate members from amongst these classes which are statutorily prescribed is to ensure that these classes are effectively represented. The purpose underlying nomination under the said provision can never be to provide a representative of the State Government in the sense of an agent of the State Government. Who has to look after the interests of the State Government. The mere fact that the State Government is empowered to nominate members on the basis of the objective standards indicated in Section 16(1) Class II (B) will not empower the State Government to keep a constant control over these members.[Para 4](b) Saurashtra University Act, 1965 - Secs. 16(1) class II-B, 16(2), 56 & 57 - Scheme under the provisions - Members once nominated to senate to continue for a statutory period of five years unless a vacancy arises - Orders of State Govt. cancelling nomination of petitioners alongwith nomination of 10 other persons before expiry of the term of office of five years contrary to Sec. 16(2) of the Act can not be sustained - Set aside.The provisions of Section 16(1) - Class II (B) of the said Act inter alia provides that the Senate shall consist of 12 members to be nominated from amongst distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and such other class of persons. Section 16(2) provides that the term of the office of the elected members and of the members referred to class II (B) shall be of five years. Section 56 of the Act indicates that the office of any member of any Authority or Body of the University may fall vacant by his resignation or if any member is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. Section 57 provides that when vacancies occur in the office of a member of any Authority or Body, before the expiry of the term of office the vacancy shall be filled up by election, nomination, appointment or co-option as the case may be. The scheme of the provisions of Section 16(2) 56 and 57 would clearly indicate that a member of any Authority or Body would continue for the period of the term of his office unless a vacancy arises. This surely does not militate against the powers of the State Government which it may have of dismissing a member at a given point of time by invoking the provisions of Section 16 of the Bombay General Clauses Act but, such an exercise will entail a different course and would even include an opportunity of being heard to be given to the nominated member who would have ordinarily continued for a period of five years. When the law provides that the term of office of a nominated member would be of five years, it would mean that a person who has been nominated is entitled to continue in the office for a period of five years unless he has been lawfully removed.[Paras 3 & 4](c) Words & Phrases - Word `Nominated in Sec. 16(1) class II(B) of Saurashtra University Act, 1965 - Used in the sense of appointment.Important Point : (1) Members of senate once nominated continues for five years unless a vacancy arises.(2) Senate constitutied is a statutory body and is not expected to represent policies of State Govt.

R. K. ABICHANDANI, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE to amend. Permitted to place impugned order dated 11-7-1995 on record as part of Annexure "a" to the petition.

( 2 ) RULE. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State. Mr. J. R, Nanavati, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2 - University. Mr. Y. S. Lakhani, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 12 and 14. Mr. V. H. Patel, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners craves leave to delete respondent nos. 4 to 9, 11, 13, IS and 16. These respondent Nos. 4 to 9, 11,13, 15 and 16 are permitted to be deleted. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for these parties, the matter is finally heard and is being disposed of.

( 3 ) THE petitioners who were nominated by the State Government as members of the Senate under the provisions of Sec. 16 (1) - Class II (B) of the Saurashtra university Act, 1965 have challenged the order dated 11/07/1995 passed by the State Government cancelling their nominations, alongwith the nominations of 10 other persons and nominating 12 fresh members in their place. They have also challenged the consequential circular issued by the respondent No. 2 - University.

( 4 ) TWELVE members including the petitioners were nominated to the Senate by the State Government by its order dated 23-5-1992. The petitioners were nominees alongwith 10 other persons. According to the petitioners, the term of their office was of 5 years and therefore, they were entitled to continue till 20/05/1997. The impugned order cutting short their term and nominating 12 new members, according to them, is in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 16 (2) of the said act. It was submitted that the State Government could not have curtailed the term of their office of five years merely with a view to nominate 12 members of their choice. The stand of the State Government is that a person nominated has no right to hold the office for five years. The provision of Sec. 16 (2) refers to the term of office of five years and does not say that the nominee of the State Government shall be entitled to hold the office for a period of five years. It was submitted that the concept of nomination itself implied that the authority nominating the member can always withdraw him. The act of nomination is left to the subjective satisfaction of the State Government and therefore: according to the Assistant Government pleader, doctrine of pleasure of the State Government could be invoked ~and the nominees can hold office only during the pleasure of the State Government unless allowed to continue to remain in the office for a period of five years. It was also argued that effective dialogue would not be possible and the Government policies will not be effectively represented if the persons nominated by the previous government were allowed to continue. It was contended that the purpose underlying the provisions empowering the State. Government to nominate members was to ensure that the policies of the State Government were effectively represented in the senate through these nominees. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this High court in the case of Harisinh Pratapsinh Chavda v. Chimanbhai J. Patel, Chief minister and Ors. , reported in [1991 (1)1 32 (1) GLR 667 and of the Delhi High court in the case of Ghanshyam Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1991 Delhi 59 in support of the contention that it was open to the State Government to recall these nominees.

( 5 ) THE provision of Sec. 16 (1) - Class II (B) of the said Act inter-alia provides that the Senate shall consist of 12 members to be nominated from amongst distinguished educationists, social workers, trade unions, representatives of backward communities, women and such other class of persons. Section 16 (2) provides that the term of the office of the







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