Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
MOOTHAM, J.
Ishwari Prasad
Versus
Registrar, University of Allahabad
Writ Petn. No.872 of 1954
Decided On : 29-10-1954
UNIVERSITY - Allahabad University Act, 1921 - S.17, 42 - Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations - First Statute relating to Court - Cl.(ii) - First Statute relating to Executive Council - Cl.(ii) - Chancellor's order under S.42 - Whether erroneous in law - Certiorari - Whether lies to quash the order - Principles governing the issue of certiorari - Whether the Chancellor acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity - Whether the proviso to Cl.(ii) of the first Statute relating to the Executive Council applies to the petitioner - Interpretation of the proviso.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a professor in the University of Allahabad and a member of the Academic Council, was elected to the Executive Council of the University in 1952. In 1954, the Chancellor of the University, acting under S.42 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921, decided that the petitioner was not entitled to continue as a member of the Executive Council after 13-3-1954, on the ground that his membership of the Court had undergone a radical alteration from ex officio to individual capacity. The petitioner filed a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the Chancellor's order and praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his attendance at meetings of the Executive Council.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by S.42 of the Act, constituted in law a tribunal subject to the Court's superintendence, as the section imposed on him the duty to act judicially in arriving at his decision. 2. The Court has authority under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash by a writ of certiorari an order made by a tribunal subject to its supervision which is on the face of it erroneous in law. 3. The proviso to Cl.(ii) of the first Statute relating to the Executive Council applies to the petitioner, and the condition for continuance of office as a member of the Executive Council is, in the case of a member elected by the Court, his continuance as a member of the Court. 4. The Chancellor's order is erroneous in law as the petitioner continued to be a member of the Court and the proviso has been fulfilled.
Issues: 1. Whether the Chancellor acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity in making the order under S.42 of the Act. 2. Whether the Court has authority under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash by certiorari an order made by a tribunal subject to its supervision which is on the face of it erroneous in law. 3. Whether the proviso to Cl.(ii) of the first Statute relating to the Executive Council applies to the petitioner. 4. Whether the Chancellor's order is erroneous in law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Chancellor, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by S.42 of the Act, constituted in law a tribunal subject to the Court's superintendence, as the section imposed on him the duty to act judicially in arriving at his decision. 2. The Court has authority under Art.226 of the Constitution to quash by a writ of certiorari an order made by a tribunal subject to its supervision which is on the face of it erroneous in law. 3. The proviso to Cl.(ii) of the first Statute relating to the Executive Council applies to the petitioner, and the condition for continuance of office as a member of the Executive Council is, in the case of a member elected by the Court, his continuance as a member of the Court. 4. The Chancellor's order is erroneous in law as the petitioner continued to be a member of the Court and the proviso has been fulfilled.
Final Decision: The Chancellor's order dated 20-8-1954 was quashed by a writ of certiorari. The prayer for a writ of mandamus was dismissed.
2. The executive body of the University is the Executive Council, the constitution of which is laid down in the Statutes to be found in Chap. II of the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations made under the Act. The Executive Council consisted at all material times of twenty members, of whom six were members of the Court elected by the Court at its annual meeting. At the annual meeting of the Court held in November, 1952, the petitioner was elected to the Executive Council. The only limitation which is placed by the Statutes on the power of the Court to elect six of its members to the Executive Council is that two of the persons so elected must be members who were themselves elected to the Court by the registered graduates. Of the six persons who were so elected in 1952 I am informed that four were members of the Court elected by the registered graduates; Dr. Ishwari Prasad was not one of these.
3. Under head (xviii) of S.17 of the Act read with Cl.(ii) of the first Statute relating to the Court, the Chancellor of the University is empowered to appoint not more than fifteen persons to be members of the Court, and by a letter dated the 8-3-1954, the Chancellor in exercise of the power so vested in him appointed the petitioner to be a member of the University Court in place of Sri K.L. Misra:
"with effect from the date of the formers retirement from the post of Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science of the Allahabad University, viz., 12-3-1954, for the residue of the term of office of Sri K.L. Misra, viz., up to 14-12-1955".
It is common ground that the reference to March 12 is a mistake for March 13.
4. The question then arose whether the petitioner continued to be a member of the Executive Council after the 13th March, and it arose in this way: Cl.(ii) of the first Statute relating to the Executive Council provides that members of the Council other than ex officio members, and it is not suggested that the petitioner was an ex officio member of the Executive Council, shall hold office for a period of three years, but this rule is subject to the following proviso:
"Provided that a member appointed or elected as a member of a particular body or as a holder of a particular post shall hold office so long only within that period as he continues to be a member of that body or the holder of that post, as the case may be."
A difference of opinion having arisen as to whether the case of the petitioner fell within the ambit of this proviso, the Vice-Chancellor referred to the Chancellor, as he was authorised to do under S.42 of the Act, the question whether the petitioner was entitled to be a member of the Executive Council after 13-3-1954. On 20-8-1954, the Chancellor by an order of that date decided that he was not so entitled. The petitioner thereupon filed this petition, the respondents being the University of Allahabad and the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar thereof. The petitioner contends that the decision of the Chancellor that he is not entitled to be a member of the Executive Council is erroneous and he prays, first, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash that decision and, secondly, for the issue of a writ of mandam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
