Wanchoo C.J.—This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution for a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of Shri G. C. Chatterji as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Rajputana in November 1956.

2. The applicants case is briefly this. Shri Chatterji was appointed Vice-Chancellor in 1953 and his term of office was to expire on the 31st of (October 1956. The procedure for the appointment, of the Vice Chancellor is contained in sec. 12 of the University of Rajputana Act, 1946 as amended upto date (hereinafter called the Act). When the term of Shri Chatterji was to run for a few months more, a meeting of the Syndicate of the University was called and a resolution was passed recommending the reappointment of Shri Chatterji as Vice-Chancellor for, a second term of three years in Continuation of his first terms from 1st of November 1956. In pursuance of this resolution, the Chancellor of the University appointed Shri Chatterji as Vice-Chancellor for a second term of three years from 1st November 1956. The contention of the applicant is that the reappointment without following the procedure prescribed in sec. 12(1) of the Act was invalid and, therefore, this Court should issue a Writ of quo warranto after holding this appointment invalid.

3. The application has been, opposed by the opposite parties, who are the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor and the Syndicate of the university and the University itself. It is contended on their behalf that where a reappointment is being made under sec. 12(2) of the Act in continuation of the first appointment all that is necessary is, an order of re-appointment by the Chancellor and the procedure provided by sec. 12(1) of the Act need not be followed. It is also urged that the applicant has not exhausted all his remedies under the Act and, therefore, this Court should not intervene in his favour at this stage. Lastly, the motives of the applicant in impugning the appointment are also challenged and it is urged that if the motives are not clean, this Court should not interfere.

4. We shall first consider the question whether the applicant has exhausted all his remedies under the Act. In this connection reference was made to sec. 8(A) of the Act which lay down that the President of India shall be the Visitor of the University. It is also laid down in that section that the Visitor shall have the right to cause an inquiry to be made in respect of any matter connected with the University. After such inquiry the Visitor may address the Vice-Chancellor with reference to the result of the inquiry and the Vice-Chancellor has to communicate to the Senate the views of the Visitor with such advice which the Visitor may be pleased to offer upon the action to be taken thereon. The Senate shall then communicate through the Vice-Chancellor to the Visitor such action, if any, as is proposed to be taken upon the result of the inquiry. But where the Senate does not, within reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the Visitor, he may after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Senate, issue such directions as he may think fit and Senate shall comply with such directions. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the applicant should have approached the Visitor under this provision and only after the Visitor had failed to give him satisfaction that he could come to this Court. Reliance in this connection is placed on R. V. Dunsheath Ex parte Meredith (1). That was a case relating to the University of London and the question there was about the summoning of an extraordinary meeting of the convocation by the chairman. A requisition as required by the statutes was made to the Chairman of the convocation, but the latter refused to call the meeting. Thereupon the requisitionists approached the court for a writ of mandamus on the chairman. The application was refused on the ground that where an officer of the University had refused to perform a duty placed on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document