Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. M. N. Raina and U. N. Bhachawat, JJ.
VIRENDRA SINGH SEN - Appellant
Versus
JIWAJI UNIVERSITY, GWALIOR - Respondents
Misc. Petn. Case 335 Of 1975
Decided On : 02/17/1976
If we read paragraph 2 of the Ordinance with Regulation No. 3, it would be clear that where the session commences in July, the University is bound to hold examination in November : but where under extraordinary circumstances the session commences in August instead of July the examination may be held later for the benefit of the students in order to give the teachers an opportunity to complete the course and the students sufficient opportunity to prepare for the examination. [Para 12
What is mandatory is the holding of examination at the end of the semester. The months of examinations mentioned in this clause have been prefaced with the word 'ordinarily'. Had the intention been to make it a wooden rule that the examinations should be held only in November and April, the use of word ‘ordinarily’, which is destructive of that intention, would not have been made. [Para 35
According to Regulation 3, the holding of examination in November and April is pre-conditioned with the month of the commencement of the Sessions. This is evident from the governing expression "for students who start the session in July" and “for students who start the session in December”. This interpretation makes sense also. One cannot be oblivious that situation may arise due to which the session may not start in July or December or even when the session commenced as scheduled, for similar reason, which may not be possible to hold examination immediately at the end of the semester. [Para 36
(2) Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (MP) - S. 15 (4) - powers under can be exercised when emergency exists - such action when justifiable.
Per Raina, J.-Sub-section (4) of section 15 of the Adhiniyam empowers the Vice Chancellor to take such action as he deems necessary in case there is an emergency subject to the condition that he should report his action to the appropriate officer or authority which would have in the ordinary course dealt with the matter. [Para 13
The Vice-Chancellor is the sole Judge of the existence of the emergency calling for immediate action and his discretion in the matter is not open to judicial review. The only limitation on his power to act in an emergency is that he cannot under the cloak of an emergency usurp to himself the powers which the University authorities have not under the Act or the Statutes or Ordinance. 1960 JLJ 397 & 1965 JLJ 405 relied on. [Para 16
It is almost settled that whenever a power is conferred on any authority under a statute, it is meant to be exercised bona fide for the purposes thereof; and any action taken by the authority in exercise of such power can be struck down by the High Court if it is mala fide or amounts to abuse of the power. It appears to me that the action of the Vice-Chancellor, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be mala fide. [Para 25
Per Bhachawat, J.-It cannot be gainsaid that the formation of opinion by the Kulpati is purely a subjective process and the law has provided for the opinion of the Kulpati and not of the Court. Such opinion cannot be challenged except on the grounds of mala fide ; but if in reaching such opinion, the relevant legislation is misapprehended or relevant material is ignored from consideration or irrelevant material is considered, the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the opinion is not excluded. AIR 1970 SC 1789, AIR 1969 SC 707 & AIR 1967 SC 295 relied on. [Paras 45 & 46
'Emergency' means a sudden, generally un-excepted occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action. The provisions of section 15 of the Adhiniyam cannot be intended to permit the Kulpati to himself create an emergency so as to usurp the powers which ordinarily under the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations, vest in the authority or Body or Committee provided therein.
Where the Kulpati did not call the meeting of the concerned body, though there was time for it, the exercise of emergency powers was mala fide. [Para 4
(3) Constitution of India - Arts. 226 & 227 - delay-is fatal to petition. [Para 26
(4) Constitution of India - Arts. 226 & 227 - representative application - ninety per cent of students participating in the impugned programme - petition is no representative. [Para 25
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by a student of the Jiwaji University Gwalior hereinafter referred to as 'the University') for quashing the programme of B. E. examinations, which were to be held from 1st december, 1975.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a student of Third Year B. E. (Civil) in the Madhav Institute of Technology and Science, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as M. I. T. S. ). He is also the Convenor of the action committee of the M. I. T. S. Students union, gwalior. The University published a news item (Annexure B) informing the students that examinations for Engineering Classes will be held from 1st december, 1975. The contention of the petitioner is that this action of the Univerity was in contravention of Regulation No. 3, which lays down that only two examinations will be held every year, one in November and the other in April. According to him, the University has already held two examinations this year one in January and the other in July and, therefore, a third examination cannot be held. He further submitted that during this year, the session started from 28th August, 1975 and the classes of Third Year B. E. started from 18th september, 1975. It was therefore, too early to hold examinations from 1st of december, 1975. A petition of grievances was, therefore, presented by the M. I. T. S. students on 24th November, 1975. before the Principal for changing the date of examination in view of the diffculties mentioned in the petition. As no action was taken on the said petition, the students wanted to meet the Vice chancellor, but were not allowed by the police to do so. The petitioner therefore, in his capacity as convener of the student union presented this petition praying that the programme of examination as announced by the university be quashed.
( 3 ) THE petitioner had also filed an application for restraining the University not to hold the Engineering Examination from 1st December, 1975; but this application was rejected and we are told that the examinations have since been held and about 90 per cent, of the students have appeared at the said examinations.
( 4 ) IN the return filed on behalf of the University it has been stated that the january examination was for the year, 1974. It was postponed repeatedly at the request of students and was ultimately held in January. Thus in the Year 1975 only two examinations were held one in July and the other in December. It is further submitted that the session commenced very late in August and classes started in September for reasons beyond the control of University and, therefore, the examination in question was held in December instead of in november as prescribed by Regulations No. 3. Thus the action of the University was perfectly legal as well as justified. The petition has been opposed on certain other grounds, which will be considered during the course of this order.
( 5 ) SO far as holding of 3 examinations in one Year is concerned it has been adequately explained on behalf of the University that the examination held in january, 1975 was in fact for the Year 1974. It should have been held in november 1974, but on the persistent demand of the students for postponement, it was ultimately held in January, 1975. As for the academic year 1975 only two examinations have been held one in July and the other in december. Since the Ordinance contemplated an examination at the end of each semester, there appears to be nothing illegal in the course adopted by the university in the circumstances of this case and in fact Shri A. B. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner had nothing to say about it. The main point urged by him was that the action of the University in fixing examinations from 1st of december was in contravention of Regulation No. 3 referred to above and is therefore, liable to be quashed.
( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding to deal with this question it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the M. P. Vishwavidyalay
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
