Back
1996 Supreme(Raj) 530
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.R. Yadav
S.D.Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor, Jai Narain Vyas University - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2017 of 1996
Decided On : 09/10/1996
M. Mridul, Senior Advocate, R.N. Upadhyay, R.S. Saluja, Kumari Kusum Rao, Vineet Mathur, Narendra Acharya and Vivek Gupta, for the Appellant
L.S. Udawat, AAG, L.R. Mehta, J.M. Bhandari, Rajendra Mehta and A. Bhansali, for the Respondents
Power of Chancellor to nominate a member of Syndicate under clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 stands exhausted with nomination of the petitioner.
Headnote:
JAIPUR UNIVERSITY - NOMINATION OF SYNDICATE MEMBER - REMOVAL - POWER OF CHANCELLOR - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 18 OF RAJASTHAN GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1955 - PLEASURE DOCTRINE - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 29-6-96 passed by the Chancellor nominating Dr. S. L, Verma as his nominee in the syndicate of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in supersession of his earlier order dated 15-9-95.
Finding of the Court:
1. Statute 26(1) of the respondent University is not a self-contained code regulating the procedure for removal of either nominated or elected members of Syndicate, therefore; general provisions envisaged under Section 18 of Act No. 8 of 1955 can be made applicable for removal of the petitioner from membership of Syndicate. 2. Pleasure doctrine cannot be imported to Sections 18 and 23 of Act No. 8 of 1955 unless State Legislature makes specific provision to this effect. 3. Impugned order superseding the petitioner from the membership of Syndicate will be treated to have been passed on subjective satisfaction of the Chancellor.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 18 of Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 is applicable for removal of nominated members of Syndicate? 2. Whether pleasure doctrine is applicable to Section 18 of Act No. 8 of 1955? 3. Whether the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 18 of Act No. 8 of 1955 will have no application if a person holds an office under the provision of a Statute which fixed certain modes and methods for appointment, dismissal or removal. 2. Doctrine of pleasure need not be exercised by the President or the Governor personally it can be delegated to other authorities under the Rules of Business of the Government. 3. Pleasure doctrine is exception to Article 311(1) and (2) but not Article 309 hence Rules framed under Article 309 or Act referable to it cannot imping upon pleasure of President or Governor. 4. Pleasure doctrine cannot be imported to Sections 18 and 23 of Act No. 8 of 1955 unless State Legislature makes specific provision to this effect.
Final Decision: Writ petition is disposed of at admission stage.
R.R. Yadav, J.-In the instant writ petition petitioner questions impugned order dated 29-6-96. Annexure 2, passed by the Chancellor nominating Dr. S. L, Verma, Retired Professor (Department of Political Science) of University of Rajasthan, as his nominee in the syndicate of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur thereinafter referred as respondent University) w.e.f 28-6-96 for a period, three years in supersession of his earlier order dated 15-9-95 a communication whereof is filed and marked as Annexure I.
.2. The genesis of challenge of the validity of the impugned order terminating petitioner stunure as nominated member of Syndicate of the respondent University before expiry of the period of three years is based on grounds inter-alia that power of the Chancellor to nominate a member of Syndicate under clause (iv)
.of Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of Jai Narain Vyas University Jodhpur Act, 1962 thereinafter referred as Act No. 17 of 1962) stands exhausted with nomination of the petitioner.
3. It is averred in the writ petition that under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act the elected members and members nominated under clauses (iv), (vi) and (viii) of Sub-section (1) of the said section shall hold office for a period of three years and members nominated under clause (ii) and (iii) for a period of one year from the date of election or nomination as the case may be. It is alleged that order impugned has been passed against the principle of natural justice. It is perse arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner also pleaded to get the benefit of doctrine of legitimate expectation and principle of promissory estoppel.
.4. After service of notice, a return has been filed on behalf of Chancellor denying the averments made in the writ petition in present form. It is stated that a Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 530/96 (Dr. Irfan Mehar vs. State of Rajasthan). DB Civil Writ Petition No. 777/96 (Miss Shruti Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan), DB Civil Writ Petition No. 647/96 (Ramesh Joshi vs. State of Rajasthan), DB Civil Writ Petition No. 82 1/96 (Dr. Smt. Anina B. Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan) and DB Civil Writ Petition No. 866/96 (Dr. Anupma Gaur vs. State of Rajasthan) issued the following directions amongst others to the respondent University which reads thus:--
.“In the result, we issue the following directions: (1) the prevailing system of adhocism in appointments stand deprecated and we mandate upon the University to make regular appointments in respect of the sanctioned posts by August 31, 1996 positively. The selection process may be commenced within a fortnight hereof”
5. It is further stated in return filed by the Chancellor that in faithful compliance of the mandate issued by the Division Bench of this Court the respondent University commenced the process of selection for making regular appointments in respect of sanctioned post of teachers. The selection committees held selections in the month of June, 1996 in compliance of the above direction of the Division Bench of this Court and the Vice-Chancellor convened a meeting of Syndicate as envisaged under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of Act No. 17 of 1962 on 25-6-96 for approval of the recommendations sent to him by various selection committees in sealed covers. The Vice-Chancel for of the respondent University apart from sending formal communications to all the members of the Syndicate including the petitioner requested him on telephone several times and obtained his confirmation on 24-6-96 for attending the said meeting of Syndicate.
6. It is further stated in reply that in spite of giving solemn affirmation on 24-6-96 to the Vice-Chancellor to attend the meeting of Syndicate on 25-6-96, the petitioner deliberately abstained from attending the said meeting and as such the meeting was frustrated due to lack of requisite quorum making the faithful compliance of the mandate of the Division Be
