H.N. JAGANNATHA REDDY Vs. VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY BY ITS REGISTRER, VTU CAMPUS JNANA SANGAMA, BELGAUM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in WP 41602 -603/12 have questioned the power of the Chancellor quashing/cancelling the nomination to the Executive Council of the Vishveswaraya Technological University (VTU) and petitioners in WP 42139/2012 and other connected matters are challenging the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 in the place of petitioners to the Executive Council of the VTU in the meeting held on 21.9.2012 in which certain resolutions are said to have been deliberated regarding appointment of Registrar (Administration) and Registrar (Evaluation). According to the petitioners, as per the resolution passed, the Vice Chancellor/3rd respondent has signed the appointments as per Resolution 7.1 and there was no ruckus in the meeting of the Executive Council. As the appointments went against the wishes of the Vice Chancellor that too when the appointment of the Registrar (Evolution) was not according to the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor but it was by the majority decision of the Executive Council, the Vice Chancellor came with a plea that there was ruckus created by the petitioners in the Executive Council meeting and accordingly reported the same to the Chancellor on 25.9.2012 after four days, to get rid of the petitioners, to get a favourable report in his favour. These petitioners could not have been removed from the Executive Council when once they were appointed/nominated by the Chancellor and the Chancellor has no authority to remove them and also no provision is provided under the VTU Act as such, removal of the petitioners by the order of the Chancellor that too on the false report of the Vice Chancellor is non -est and the Executive Council meeting held on 21.9.2012 was in order. As such, the order if any, passed by the Chancellor is not binding on the nominees/appointees. The decision for removal has to be taken by the Executive Council and not by any other authority. Accordingly, in support of his argument, counsel representing the petitioners has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of K.R. Shivadatta Vs. Selection Committee to Govt. Medical Colleges and Anr. - 1972 (1) KLJ 5 to contend that the Selection Committee has no power to review the selection once made and argued that the cancellation of the selection once made cannot be justified under Section 16 of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1916. Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lachmi Narain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1976 SC 714 , particularly paragraphs 59 and 60, to contend that power once exercised gets exhausted.

(2.) PER contra, counsel representing the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Bool Chand Vs. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University - AIR 1968 SC 292 to contend that power to appoint implies power to terminate. Counsel has also relied upon several other decisions in this regard. It is also the argument of the counsel that S. 19 r/w S. 50 of the Act does provide for exercise of power by the Chancellor for appointment and removal of the members of the Executive Council.

(3.) ACCORDING to the counsel, the Act itself provides for removal and power is available to the Chancellor. Accordingly, he submitted pursuant to the report of the Vice Chancellor and the concerned members of the Executive Council, as per requirement, after notice is given to the petitioners, decision is taken for removal. Referring to S. 15 and 16 of the General Clauses Act also, it is contended that even in the absence of any such power, the General Clauses Act supplements the VTU Act to exercise such power and S. 16 specifically empowers the Chancellor being the Appointing Authority, to remove a person.