Kashi Nath Misra vs Chancellor, University of Allahabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1965 Supreme(All) 196

Allahbad High Court
JAGDISHSAHAI,W.BROOME
Kashi Nath Misra - Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, University of Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12/03/1965

Advocates:
M.A. Ansari and S.S. Bhatnagar, for Petitioner; G.P. Singh, K.L. Misra, Standing Counsel and Advocate General, Shanti Bhushun for Respondents.

Headnote:
ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ACT, 1921 - SECTION 11 - ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL TO SELECTION COMMITTEE - MANNER OF ELECTION - SECTION 28(2) OF THE ACT APPLIES - CHIEF JUSTICE CANNOT NOMINATE HIMSELF TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE - SECTION 45 OF THE ACT DOES NOT CURE THE ILLEGALITY IN THE ELECTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND IN THE NOMINATION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE - APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLOR IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11(1) OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Legislative Assembly, challenged the order of the Chancellor appointing the respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University. The petitioner contended that the selection committee was not properly constituted because the election of one of its members was illegal and the Chief Justice could not nominate himself. The petitioner also contended that the respondent could not be validly appointed Vice-Chancellor because no ordinance prescribing the qualifications of a Vice-Chancellor had been framed. The Chancellor had nominated the respondent for a period of six months under a provision of the Act, and the petitioner contended that the Chancellor should have asked for a fresh selection committee being appointed after that period had expired.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the election of the representative of the Executive Council to the selection committee was invalid because it was not held in the manner provided by law. The court also held that the Chief Justice could not nominate himself to the selection committee. The court further held that the appointment of the respondent as Vice-Chancellor was against the provisions of the Act. The court allowed the writ petition and issued writs of quo warranto, certiorari, and mandamus.
Issues: 1. Whether the election of the representative of the Executive Council to the selection committee was valid. 2. Whether the Chief Justice could nominate himself to the selection committee. 3. Whether the respondent could be validly appointed Vice-Chancellor.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the election of the representative of the Executive Council to the selection committee was invalid because it was not held in the manner provided by law. The court relied on Section 28(2) of the Act, which provides that elections under the Act shall be conducted according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. 2. The court held that the Chief Justice could not nominate himself to the selection committee. The court relied on the language of Section 11(4)(i)(b) of the Act, which provides that one member of the selection committee shall be "a person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court." The court held that the expression "a Judge of the High Court" does not include the Chief Justice. 3. The court held that the appointment of the respondent as Vice-Chancellor was against the provisions of the Act. The court relied on Section 11(1) of the Act, which provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from amongst the persons whose names are submitted to him by the selection committee.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and issued writs of quo warranto, certiorari, and mandamus.

Judgement

JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- By means of this writ petition filed by Sri Kashi Nath Misra, M. L. A., the order of the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, dated 26-2-1965, appointing under Section 11(1) of the Allahabad University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the respondent No. 2, Sri R. K. Nehru, as the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University, is challenged. It is not necessary to mention all the facts given in the writ petition and the affidavits filed by the parties because there is practically no dispute over them and the questions raised before us being entirely legal, do not require any consideration of question of fact. We would, therefore, give only such facts as would contribute to a correct decision of the questions of law raised before us. The Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University is a whole-time officer. Section 11 of the Act deals with the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. That provision reads :-

"11(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from amongst the persons whose names are submitted to him by the Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4).

(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall, except as otherwise provided, hold office for a period of three years but may relinquish office by resignation in writing addressed to the Chancellor. The resignation shall ordinarily be delivered to the Chancellor sixty days prior to the date on which the Vice-Chancellor wishes to be relieved.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be such as are, or may be, prescribed by Statutes.

(4) (i). The Committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall consist of three persons, namely :-

(a) one person, not being a person who is connected with the University, a College, an Associated College, a Constituent College or a Hostel, to be elected by the Executive Council;

(b) another person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court; and

(ii) The Committee shall, as far as may be, at least thirty days before the date on which a vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor is due to occur by reason of expiry of term or resignation under sub-section (2) and also whenever so required by the Chancellor, submit to the Chancellor the names of three persons suitable to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor. The Committee shall, while submitting the names, also forward to the Chancellor a concise statement showing the academic qualifications and other distinctions of each of the said three persons, but shall not indicate any order of preference.

(5) Where a vacancy in the office of Vice-Chancellor occurs or is likely to occur by reason of leave, or any cause, other than resignation or expiry of term, the Registrar shall report the fact forthwith to the Chancellor, who shall -

(i) in case the vacancy is or is likely to last for a period exceeding six months, take steps for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4);

(ii) in case the vacancy is for a period of six months or less, appoint any suitable person to the office of Vice-Chancellor.

(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section, the Chancellor may, in any case of emergency, of which the Chancellor shall be the sole judge and in any case where the vacancy cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) appoint any suitable person to the office of Vice-Chancellor.

Provided that no appointment under this sub-section shall be made for a period of more than six months.

Provided further that the appointment so made shall determine on appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1965 Supreme(All) 196

Allahbad High CourtJAGDISHSAHAI,W.BROOMEKashi Nath Misra - AppellantVersusChancellor, University of Allahabad - RespondentDecided On : 12/03/1965

Allahbad High Court
JAGDISHSAHAI,W.BROOME
Kashi Nath Misra - Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, University of Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12/03/1965