Back
1972 Supreme(MP) 56
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. P. Bhargava and S. R. Vyas, JJ.
RAMESHCHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
G.N.TANDON - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 28 Of 1972
Decided On : 03/31/1972
JETHUMALANI AND KOHLI, K.K.SETHI, R.G.WAGHMARE, S.C.BAGDIA, S.L.GARG, S.M.JHAVER, V.S.KOKJE, V.S.Samvatsar
The word 'employee' in the Explanation to Section 19 (1) of the Indore University Act, 1963, does not cover the case of a person who has merely agreed to deliver a few lectures at his leisure and convenience without any obligation being imposed on the college to pay him any remuneration for the delivery of these lectures.
Headnote:
ELECTION - REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPER - EMPLOYEE - EXPLANATION TO SECTION 19 (1) OF THE INDORE UNIVERSITY ACT, 1963 - INTERPRETATION - HONORARY LECTURER - WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered graduate of the University of Indore, was rejected as a candidate for the University Court election on the ground that he was an employee of a college within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 19 (1) of the Indore University Act, 1963. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination paper by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 19 (1) of the Act. The court observed that the word 'employee' cannot be read as a term of art in the absence of any definition. The court further observed that the petitioner was working only in an honorary capacity and that the Explanation to Section 19 (1) was enacted to avoid any possible conflict of the members of the Court with their duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was an employee within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 19 (1) of the Act? 2. Whether the petitioner was working in an honorary capacity? 3. Whether the Explanation to Section 19 (1) was enacted to avoid any possible conflict of the members of the Court with their duty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the word 'employee' cannot be read as a term of art in the absence of any definition. The court further observed that the petitioner was working only in an honorary capacity and that the Explanation to Section 19 (1) was enacted to avoid any possible conflict of the members of the Court with their duty. 2. The court observed that the petitioner was not receiving any remuneration for his services and that he was not subject to the control and discipline of the college management. The court further observed that the petitioner was free to deliver lectures at his own convenience and that he was not required to follow a particular timetable. 3. The court observed that the Explanation to Section 19 (1) was enacted to avoid any possible conflict of the members of the Court with their duty. The court further observed that the petitioner, as an honorary lecturer, would not have any conflict of interest with his duty as a member of the Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's nomination paper.
( 1 ) THE facts leading to the presentation of this petition by Rameshchandra Bahoti may be briefly stated thus. The petitioner is admittedly a registered graduate of the University of Indore. He passed his M. Com. Degree Examination in the year 1967. In that very year, Shri Vaishnav Arts and Commerce College. Indore, also called as Shri Vaishnav College of Commerce, was started at Indore in the month of August. The petitioner received a let-ter (Annexure A) from the Joint Secretary of the said College in which it was requested that he may at his convenience and according to his aptitude deliver some lectures to the students of that college. By his reply dated 3rd August, 1967 (also marked Annexure A) the petitioner accepted the said offer in these words:
"it is really very kind of you to extend an invitation for delivering a few lectures to the students. I shall be happy to do so subject to the limitations of time and according to my convenience. "
( 2 ) ANNEXURE R-2 filed with the return on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the registrar of the University of Indore and the University of Indore, shows that the petitioner is the senior-most Honorary Lecturer in the said College and he has been teaching the subject of Business Administration from the month of Au-gust 1967 in the Shri Vaishnav College of Commerce, Indore. The particulars regarding seniority of members of the staff given in Annexure R-2 clearly mention the petitioner as 'honorary Lecturer'. Under the Indore University Registered graduates (Elections to the Court) Ordinance, 1965 (hereinafter called the ordinance) Registrar of the University conducts the said elections. The programme of elections to the court of the University was duly published under Clause 5 of the ordinance and is Annexure B on record. In accordance with the said programme, the petitioner who was desirous of contesting the election to the University Court as a representative to be elected by the Registered Graduates of the University from among themselves under Clause (21) to Section 19 (1) of the Indore university Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the Act) submitted his nomination paper duly proposed and seconded as required by the relevant provisions of the ordinance. The nomination papers submitted by the various candidates were scrutinized by the first respondent on 28-2-1972. The nomination papers of respondents Nos. 3 to 25 were accepted but the nomination paper of the petitioner as also the nomination papers of respondents 26 to 28 were rejected. Thus, respondents 3 to 25 remained as the contesting candidates at the said election.
( 3 ) THE nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent on the basis of the explanation to Section 19 (1) of the Act. The said Explanation reads thus:
"no employee of any University or any College within the State shall be eligible to be a member under items (xviii) to (xxii ). "
The reasons given by the Registrar for rejecting the nomination paper were conveyed to the petitioner vide Annexure C. After reproducing the Explanation quoted above, the first respondent stated the following reasons for rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner :"since your name has been shown as the senior-most Lecturer in the list of teaching staff of the Vaishnava College submitted by the Principal of the College vide his letter No. 285/71 of the 8th September, 1971. you, therefore, are in the category of the employee though it is mentioned against your name that you are an Honorary Lecturer. All Lecturers are employees of the College concerned, so far as the teaching and disciplinary control over them by the Principal is exercised. Your form, therefore has been rejected under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Ordinance no. 1 of University of Indore read with the explanation to Section 19 (1)of the Act. "
( 4 ) IT is averred in the petition that the order made by the first respondent is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record; that th
