Back
1996 Supreme(Ker) 172
Kerala High Court
P.SHANMUGAM
T.V.Balan - Appellant
Versus
University of Calicut - Respondent
Decided On : 04/12/1996
M/s. M.K. Oamodaran and P.K. Vijaya Mohan, for Petitioners; By Standing Counsel Sri M.A. Manhu, Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, Advocate General Sri S. Narayanan Poti, for Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Senate is a continuing body, and the power of the Syndicate under S.23-A can only be exercised under extraordinary circumstances when the Senate has dissolved or is unable to function.
Headnote:
Election - University Committee - Calicut University Act, 1975 - S.17, S.18, S.19, S.21, S.22, S.23-A - The court considered the election of a representative to the committee for recommending the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor under the Calicut University Act, 1975. The key legal provisions discussed were S.18(1), S.18(3), and S.23-A. The court interpreted the provisions to determine the continuity of the Senate and the power of the Syndicate, ultimately setting aside the election of the representative to the committee.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the election of a representative to the committee for recommending the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor under the Calicut University Act, 1975. The issue before the court was whether the Syndicate was entitled to elect/nominate a representative of the Syndicate to the committee, and whether the Senate had lapsed or was continuing till its reconstitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Senate is a continuing body and its members hold office until the next reconstitution of the Senate. The court held that the Syndicate cannot exercise the powers of the Senate while the Senate is in existence. The court also found that the election of certain members to the Syndicate and their participation in the election of the representative to the committee were illegal.
Issues: The issues before the court included the continuity of the Senate, the power of the Syndicate to elect a representative, and the legality of certain members' participation in the election.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of S.18(1), S.18(3), and S.23-A to determine the continuity of the Senate and the power of the Syndicate. The court held that the Senate is a continuing body and that S.23-A can only be activated under extraordinary circumstances when the Senate has dissolved or it is impossible for the Senate to function.
Final Decision: The court set aside the election of the representative to the committee, finding it to be ultra vires of S.18 of the Act. The court also declared the participation of certain members in the election as illegal. The original petitions were allowed.
Both the Original Petitions relate to election of a representative to the committee constituted to recommend the appointment of Vice-Chancellor to the Calicut University.
2. Constitutional set up: The Calicut University Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for the reorganisation of the University of Calicut. Among the seven authorities of the University we are concerned with the Senate and the Syndicate constituted under Ss.17 and 21 of the Act. The Senate constitute of ex-officio, elected and other members totalling 118. The Syndicate consists of ex-officio and other members totalling 17. As per Section 19 the Senate is the supreme authority of the University and has the power to review the action of the Syndicate and the Academic Council and has retained all the residuary powers of the University. An elected member of the Senate has to be member of a three members committee for recommending the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor under S.10 of the Act. The Syndicate is the Chief Executive Body of the University.
3. Issue before the Court: As per S.10 it is the Senate that has to elect a member to the committee for recommending the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 28-12-1995 nominated/elected Sri V.M. Manoharan, a Syndicate member to the committee constituted for selection of the Vice-Chancellor in terms of Section 10(1) of the Act. The Syndicate exercised this power of nomination by invoking S.23-A of the Act. The following questions arise for consideration: (1) Whether the Syndicate is entitled to elect/nominate a representative of the Syndicate to the committee? (2) Whether the Senate after its reconstitution on 28-8-1988 has lapsed after 28-8-1992 or is continuing till its reconstitution? (3) Whether the appointment of Sri V.M. Manoharan is proper?
4. The legal position: The relevant provisions that arise for consideration are extracted as follows:
"18. Reconstitution of the Senate: - (1) The Senate shall be reconstituted every four years.
(2) The term of office of any member referred to in items (13) and (14) under the heading "Ex-Officio Members" in Section 17 shall be two years from the date of his nomination.
(3) Every member of the Senate, other than ex-officio members, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, hold office until the next reconstitution of the Senate:
(4) Provided that no member nominated or elected in his capacity as a member of a particular body or as the holder of a particular office shall hold office for a longer period than three months after he has ceased to be such member or holder of such office, unless in the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that electorate:
........................................................................
(5) When a person ceases to be a member of the Senate, he shall cease to be a member of any of the authorities of the University of which he may happen to be a member by virtue of his membcrship of the Senate.
........................................................................
22. Term of office of members of Syndicate Members of the Syndicate, other than ex-officio members, shall hold office for a term of four years from the date of their election:
Provided that no person elected in his capacity as a member of a particular body or as the holder of a particular office shall be a member pf the Syndicate for a longer period than three months after he has ceased to be such member or holder of such office unless in the meanwhile he again becomes a member of that electorate or the holder of that office.
Provided further that the member referred to in item (b) under the heading "Other Members" in S.21 shall hold office for a period of one year from the date of his election or till he ceases to be a member of the Senate, whichever is earlier:
Provided also that a member other than an ex-officio member shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold office until his
