2023 Supreme(SC) 1185

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7700 of 2023
Decided on : 30-11-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Writ of Quo warranto – Writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with law – Quo warranto is directed to such person who is required to show by what authority he is entitled to hold the office.
(2) Reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – Court must give effect to purpose and object of Act for reason that legislature is presumed to have enacted a reasonable statute.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 32/226 – Writ of Quo warranto – Quo warranto is a writ that lies against a person who usurps any franchise, liberty, or office – Quo warranto is a judicial remedy against an intruder or usurper of an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty – Writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with law – Quo warranto is directed to such person who is required to show by what authority he is entitled to hold the office – Challenge can be made on various grounds, including the ground that possessor of office does not fulfill required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification, which debars him to hold such office – Question of fulfilling legal requirements and qualifications necessary to hold a public office would be considered in proceedings independent of the fact as to who made appointment and manner in which appointment was made – Any person may challenge validity of an appointment of a public office, whether any fundamental or other legal right of his has been infringed or not – But court must be satisfied that person so applying is bona fide and there is a necessity in public interest to declare judicially that there is a usurpation of public office – If application is not bona fide and applicant is a mere pawn or a man of straw in hands of others, he cannot claim remedy – Though applicant may not be an aspirant for office nor has any interest in appointment, he can apply as a private relator, or an ordinary citizen. (Paras 27, 29, 31, 32 and 33)

(B) University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 – Regulation 7.3 – Kannur University Act, 1996 – Section 10 – Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor – It is Chancellor who has been conferred with competence under Act 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor – No other person even Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with functioning of statutory authority – It is not necessary to follow procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment – If any decision is taken by a statutory authority at behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, same would be patently illegal – Under scheme of Act 1996 and statutes, Chancellor plays a very important role – He is not merely a titular head – In selection of Vice-Chancellor, he is sole Judge and his opinion is final in all respects – In reappointing Vice-Chancellor, main consideration to prevail upon Chancellor is interest of University. (Paras 66, 82 and 85)

(C) Service Law – Reappointment – Tenure Post – Reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post – It cannot be contended that post of Vice-Chancellor being a “tenure post” reappointment is not permissible. (Paras 46 and 47)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – Purposive Construction – Doctrine of purposive construction may be taken recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to statutory provisions and courts must state what meaning the statute should bear, rather than rendering the statute a nullity, as statutes are meant to be operative and not inept – Courts must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable – Rules of interpretation require that construction which carries forward objectives of statute, protects interest of parties and keeps remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text and context of statute – Construction given by court must promote object of statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and not efface its very purpose – Courts strongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility – Provision of statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative – Court must take a pragmatic view and must keep in mind purpose for which statute was enacted – Court must adopt a construction which suppresses mischief and advances remedy and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of mischief, and pro private commodo, and to add force and life to cure and remedy, according to true intent of makers of the Act, pro bono publico – Court must give effect to purpose and object of Act for reason that legislature is presumed to have enacted a reasonable statute. (Para 56)

(E) Administrative Law – If a statute expressly confers a statutory power on a particular body or authority or imposes a statutory duty on the same, then such power must be exercised or duty performed by that very body or authority itself and none other – If the body or authority exercises statutory power or performs statutory duty acting at behest or on dictate of any other body or person, then this is regarded as an abdication of statutory mandate and any decision taken on such basis is contrary to law and liable to be quashed – In law, it matters not that extraneous element is introduced in good faith or for advancement of any goal or objection howsoever laudable or desirable – Rule of law requires that a statutory power vests in body or authority where statute so provides and likewise, discharge of statutory duty is responsibility of body or authority to which it is entrusted – That body or authority cannot merely rubberstamp an action taken elsewhere or simply endorse or ratify decision of someone else. (Para 71)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at instance of two unsuccessful original writ petitioners before High Court. Appellant No. 1 herein in his capacity as elected member of the Senate of Kannur University and appellant No. 2 herein in his capacity as the member of Academic Council of the said University together questioned legality and validity of reappointment of the respondent No. as Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 26975 of 2021 in High Court of Kerala, primarily on the ground that the respondent No. 4 was not eligible for reappointment as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University.

Findings of Court:

Chancellor was required to discharge his statutory duties in accordance with law and guided by dictates of his own judgment and not at the behest of anybody else. Law does not recognise any such extra constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion. Any such interference amounts to dictation from political superior and has been condemned by courts on more than one occasions.

Result : Appeal allowed.