Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C.P. Sen, B.C. Varma and Gulab C. Gupta, JJ.
Radheshyam Tripathi
Versus
Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa
MISC. PETN. 798 of 1984 Of
Decided On : May 08,1986
Per C.P. Sen, J.
The petitioner‘s appointment by the Chairman and not even by the Governing body of the College was a dubious appointment and cannot be recognised. Of course, it was open to the Governing Body to appoint ad hoc lecturers but that could be only for a term of six months in case of emergency. Ad-hoc Lecturers have as such no lien on the post and not being regular appointees, they have no right to be included in the voters‘ list. Since the Scrutinising Committee did not have the record about the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer, they found difficulty and referred the matter to the Registrar who was then officiating as Kulpati also since the Kulpati had proceeded on leave. So the representation bas been rejected by the Kulpati and is a valid and correct order. There is no contravention of any provision of law nor the petitioner‘s any right affected. [Para 16]
The petitioner and 11 others were ad hoc lecturers and are now on probation. The petitioner being an ad hoc Lecturer could not contest the election in view of the fact that his appointment was for a short tenure and could not represent the Lecturers for the full term as their representative in the Court, so it is difficult to understand how he can be permitted to vote in the election. [Para 18]
(2) Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.)-Statute No. 25-words ‘every teacher‘ -who is.
Per C.P. Sen. J.
The words ‘every teacher‘ appearing in Statute No. 25 and the Rules must include only those teachers who are duly appointed. This is clear from the subsequent words "qualified to be a candidate and vote at the election". He must not only be a voter but must also be able to contest. [Para 18]
Per Gulab C. Gupta. J.
It is well established that an ‘ad-hoc‘ appointment is purely a stop-gap arrangement and confers no right whatsoever on such an appointee. An ad hoc appointment is also terminable at any time under the circumstances an ad-hoc lecturer cannot assure that he will continue as a lecturer upto the date of election. He cannot assure that he would be able to "represent" other lecturers in the University Court for which he is being elected. Obviously, therefore, an ad-hoc appointee cannot help to achieve the object and purpose of the provision. [Para 11]
(3) Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.)-statute 28-Cls. 16 and 18 -appointment of teacher-how to be made.
Per B.C. Varma, J.
Clause 16 of Statute 28 tells us the manner in which the appointment to any teaching post in the college is to be made. According to that clause such appointments to the teaching post in the college are to be made on recommendation of the Selection Committee appointed under Clause 17 of the Statute 28. However, Clause 18 (1) provides that no person shall be appointed to be a full time salary teaching post in the college except on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Statute. It further provides that if the appointment to a teaching post is not expected to continue for more than six months and cannot be delayed without detriment to the interests of the institution, the Governing Body may make such appointment without obtaining the recommendation of the Committee of Selection but the person so appointed shall not be retained on the same post for a period exceeding six months. It will, thus appear that a teacher can also be appointed without the recommendation of the Selection Committee and in the manner laid down in clause 16 and 17 of Statute 28 when the interest of the institution require such appointments to be made, but life of such appointments cannot exceed six months. The term ‘teachers‘ within the meaning of clause 1(d) of the Statute 28 shall also include teachers appointed without due selection by the Committee of Selection and for maximum period of six months in accordance with proviso to sub-clause (1) of Clause 18 of Statute 28. [Para 5]
(4) Practice-Benches of Judges-propriety of forming of. [Para 9]
(5) Constitution of India-Art. 226-futile writs cannot be issued.
Per Gulab C. Gupta, J.
It is not the practice of the High Court to issue any futile writ. As the election, in which the petitioner was a candidate had aleardy taken place, it is futile to issue any writ. AIR 1954 SC 592, AIR 1972 SC 1680, AIR 1972 SC 2240 and 1979 (I) MPWN 277 relied on. [Para 10]
(6) Interpretation of Statute-language capable of giving two meanings-absurdity should be avoided.
Per Gulab C. Gupta, J.
It cannot be seriously disputed that if the language used in a provision is capable of bearing more than one construction, the consequences resulting from adopting a construction would be valid consideration for determining the true meaning of the word. A construction that results in absurdity or anomaly or which leads to inconsistency has to be rejected and preference given to that construction which avoids such results. AIR 1958 SC 353, AIR 1958 SC 414, AIR 1976 SC 2386 and AIR 1977 SC 2171 followed. [Para 11]
( 1. ) ON a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, this petition has been referred to me to resolve the difference of opinion in this case. While B. C. Varma, J. is of the view that the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders Annexures C and E should be quashed rejecting the representation of the petitioner to include his name in the electoral roll of lecturers for electing their representative to the University Court, while according to Gulab Gupta, J. the petition ought to be dismissed firstly because it is an exercise in futility as the elections are over and no purpose can be served by now deciding this question and secondly the petitioner not being a Lecturer duly appointed as per requirements of law, he being an ad hoc lecturer or lecturer on probation, not entitled to be included in the voters list. Only regular lecturers duly appointed can be included in the list.
( 2. ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya is a University constituted under M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The various authorities of the University have been enumerated in Section 19 including the court. Under Section 20 the Court shall consist of the persons enumerated in Groups A to E. Group B pertains to representatives of Principals, Professors, Readers and Lecturers. So far as present case is concerned, under Rule 20 (1) (xiv), 14 persons are to be elected by the Lecturers to the Court. Under Section 4 (xx) teachers of the University means Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons as may be appointed for imparting instructions or conducting research, with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or any College or Institution maintained or recognised by the University. Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya, Lalgaon, is a college affiliated to the respondent No. 1 University and is receiving grants-in-aid from M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. Statute No. 25 prescribes the procedure for election of members to the Court. Under Clause 3, the Registrar is required to publish provisional list of electoral roll and circulate the same to the respective colleges. Under Clause 4, any Lecturer whose name has been omitted from the electoral roll may apply in the prescribed form for inclusion of his name. Under Clause 5 on such an application being received, the same has to be scrutinised by the committee consisting of 2 Deans to be nominated by the Kulpati and the Registrar, respondents 2 and 3. Against the order of the Scrutinising Committee, appeal lies to the Kulpati under Sub-clause (3 ). The election programme was, announced by the Registrar on 23-1-1984 and on the same day provisional electoral roll was exhibited and circulated. As the petitioners name and names of 11 other Lecturers of the said College were missing from the electoral roll of Lecturers, he made an application for inclusion of his name. His application was forwarded to the Scrutinising Committee who held that only Lecturers regularly appointed as per the Adhiniyam are alone to be included in the electoral roll and not the ad hoc or irregular appointees. However, the Committee found difficulty in giving a final decision and referred the matter to the competent authority on 15-2-1984 which was the date of scrutiny. On the same day, the Registrar-respondent No. 3, also rejected the representation saying that since the appointment of the petitioner and the other 11 Lecturers were illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder, their names cannot be included in the electoral roll. The counting of votes was to take place on 7-4-1984 but in the meantime the present petition was filed and ad interim stay was obtained on 31-3-84 that elections may take place but result of the election from the Teachers Constituency shall not be declared until further orders.
( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is M. A. in Sociology from Banaras University and got 1
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
