1965 Supreme(All) 23

Allahbad High Court
R.S.PATHAK
Shabbir Fatima - Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor, University of Allahabad - Respondent
Decided On : 02/11/1965

The Chief Justice of a High Court in India is a Judge of that Court and is competent to nominate himself as a member of the Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921. An election under Section 11(4)(i)(a) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 must be held according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 is a body of the University and Section 45 of the Act protects the recommendations of the Committee from being invalidated.

Headnote:

CHIEF JUSTICE - COMPETENCE TO FUNCTION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE - NOMINATION OF HIMSELF - VALIDITY - ELECTION OF MEMBER OF COMMITTEE BY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL - PROCEDURE - ELECTION BY PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION BY MEANS OF SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE - NOTICE OF MEETING - SUFFICIENCY - DOCTRINE OF INTERNAL MANAGEMENT - APPLICABILITY - COMMITTEE - WHETHER BODY OF UNIVERSITY - SECTION 45 OF ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ACT, 1921 - APPLICABILITY - LACHES - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - SECTION 42 OF ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY ACT, 1921 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who are lecturers of the University of Allahabad, pray for a writ in the nature of quo-warranto to enquire from the Chief Justice of this Court and Sri Sri Prakash by what authority they purport to act as members of the Committee constituted under S.11(4) of the Allahabad University Act and for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Chancellor not to accept the recommendations made by the Committee so constituted.

Finding of the Court:

The Chief Justice of a High Court in India is a Judge of that Court. The word "Judge", without anything more, will include the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is competent to nominate himself as a member of the Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921. A registered graduate is not a person who is connected with the University, a College, an Associated College, a Constituent Collage or a Hostel. An election under Section 11(4)(i)(a) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 must be held according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. The notice of the meeting at which the election is to be held must mention the time, date and place of the meeting and should be accompanied by a list of members. The Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 is a body of the University. The doctrine of internal management does not operate to protect ultra vires acts. Section 45 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 protects the recommendations of the Committee from being invalidated.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chief Justice of a High Court in India is a Judge of that Court? 2. Whether the Chief Justice is competent to nominate himself as a member of the Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921? 3. Whether a registered graduate is a person who is connected with the University, a College, an Associated College, a Constituent Collage or a Hostel? 4. Whether an election under Section 11(4)(i)(a) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 must be held according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote? 5. Whether the notice of the meeting at which the election is to be held must mention the time, date and place of the meeting and should be accompanied by a list of members? 6. Whether the Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 is a body of the University? 7. Whether the doctrine of internal management operates to protect ultra vires acts? 8. Whether Section 45 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 protects the recommendations of the Committee from being invalidated? 9. Whether the petitioners are guilty of laches? 10. Whether an alternative remedy was available to the petitioners under S. 42 of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Chief Justice of a High Court in India is a Judge of that Court because the word "Judge", without anything more, will include the Chief Justice. 2. The Chief Justice is competent to nominate himself as a member of the Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 because there is nothing in the context in which the power has been conferred by clause (b) or anything in the object for which Section 31 was enacted to preclude the Chief Justice from serving as a member of the Committee. 3. A registered graduate is not a person who is connected with the University, a College, an Associated College, a Constituent Collage or a Hostel because he holds no position of profit in the University or any of its bodies and is not in a position, by reason of being a registered graduate, to derive any personal benefit from them. 4. An election under Section 11(4)(i)(a) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 must be held according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote because Section 28(2) of the Act requires that wherever the Act calls for an election, such election must be conducted according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. 5. The notice of the meeting at which the election is to be held must mention the time, date and place of the meeting and should be accompanied by a list of members because the notice should state the purpose of the meeting and the period of notice is fixed so that the notice is served upon the members well in time, enabling them during the period of notice to collect such information as they may need and to prepare themselves so as to effectively participate in the meeting. 6. The Committee constituted under Section 11(4) of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 is a body of the University because it is an integral part of the machinery created by the Act for the selection of a person as Vice-Chancellor, a whole-time officer of the University. 7. The doctrine of internal management does not operate to protect ultra vires acts because the election was not held in accordance with the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, a matter on which S. 28(2) speaks in imperative terms. 8. Section 45 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 protects the recommendations of the Committee from being invalidated because the Committee is a body of the University and the Chancellor is not deprived of his authority to consider them and act upon them. 9. The petitioners are not guilty of laches because they could legitimately wait for the Committee to start functioning before challenging its constitution. 10. An alternative remedy was not available to the petitioners under S. 42 of the Act because it is not an adequate or equally appropriate alternative remedy.

Final Decision: The petition is dismissed, but no order is made as to costs.