1961 Supreme(MP) 83

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
S.C.BARAT - Appellant
Versus
HARI VINAYAK PATASKAR - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 229 Of 1961
Decided On : 09/08/1961

Headnote:

JABALPUR UNIVERSITY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 11 - APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - COMMITTEE FOR RECOMMENDING PANEL OF NAMES - REQUIREMENT THAT TWO MEMBERS BE UNCONNECTED WITH UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE - MANDATORY - DEFECT IN APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER BY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL - NOT CURED BY SECTION 48 - WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUED TO COMPEL APPOINTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, members of the Jabalpur University Court and Executive Council, challenged the appointment of the respondent as Vice-Chancellor, alleging that the Committee constituted under Section 11(2) of the Jabalpur University Act, 1956, for recommending a panel of names for appointment as Vice-Chancellor, was not validly constituted as one of the members appointed by the Executive Council was connected with a college and was, therefore, disqualified. The Chancellor, Executive Council, and the Vice-Chancellor opposed the petition, contending that the requirement that two members of the Committee be unconnected with the University or a college was directory and not mandatory, and that the defect in the appointment of the member was cured by Section 48 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the requirement that two members of the Committee be unconnected with the University or a college was mandatory and not directory, and that the defect in the appointment of the member by the Executive Council was not cured by Section 48. The Court further held that the petitioners had a real and specific interest in the subject-matter and a specific legal right to enforce, and that they were not guilty of laches and acquiescence.

Issues: 1. Whether the requirement that two members of the Committee be unconnected with the University or a college was mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the defect in the appointment of the member by the Executive Council was cured by Section 48 of the Act? 3. Whether the petitioners had a real and specific interest in the subject-matter and a specific legal right to enforce? 4. Whether the petitioners were guilty of laches and acquiescence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the requirement that two members of the Committee be unconnected with the University or a college was mandatory and not directory, as it was intended to place the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor above any parochial considerations or local influences and to secure the appointment of a person of merit, independence, and standing as the Vice-Chancellor. The Court further held that the Committee constituted under Section 11(2) was of an advisory nature and, therefore, the provision in Section 11(2) that the members to be appointed by the Executive Council on the Committee should be unconnected with the University or a college was intended to be directory. 2. The Court held that the defect in the appointment of the member by the Executive Council was not cured by Section 48 of the Act, as the defect was in the qualification of one of the members and not in his appointment by the Executive Council, and the Committee constituted under Section 11 was not any "administrative body or any authority under Section 21 of the University" and, therefore, Section 45 had no applicability. 3. The Court held that the petitioners had a real and specific interest in the subject-matter and a specific legal right to enforce, as they were members of the University Court and Executive Council, and the University was a corporate body constituted under the University Act and all the members of the Court, the Executive Council, the Academic Council, and even the Registered Graduates were all equally interested in the University functioning according to the provisions of the Act. 4. The Court held that the petitioners were not guilty of laches and acquiescence, as they were not aware of the fact that the member appointed by the Executive Council was connected with a college until a few days before the filing of the petition.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the order appointing the respondent as Vice-Chancellor and directed the Chancellor to make a fresh appointment in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. There was no order as to costs.