K P JAYARAMA REDDY Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of the Senate which is one of the authorities constituted under the Bangalore University Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . In this writ petition, he has challenged the appointments of respondents 3, 4 and 5 as Readers in Civil Engineering in the University College of Engineering, pursuant to the resolutions passed by the Syndicate of the University.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner in regard to the impugned appointments is that there has been non-compliance with the rules or regulations framed by the University governing the appointments of respondents 3, 4 and 5. It is also contended that respondent 3 did not possess the requisite qualifications for the post to which he was appointed. When the above writ petition was taken up for hearing Shri S. Vijaya Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the University, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. Elaborating the above submission, he contended that the petitioner had not sufficient interest in the eye of law to file the above petition questioning the appointments of respondents 3, 4 and 5. In the above petition, there is no prayer made for the issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto against respondents 3, 4 and 5. What, however, is prayed is that certain resolutions passed by the Syndicate be quashed and that the appointments of respondents 3, 4 and 5 made pursuant to the said resolutions be quashed. Shri Vijaya Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the University, contended that the petitioner could not maintain this petition on the sole ground that he waa a member of the Senate which is one of the authorities of the University, since the interest that he had in the subject matter of litigation was too remote. It was contended that the petitioner should establish before the Court before seeking the relief under Art.226 of the Constitution that he has sufficient interest-personal or fiduciary-in the subject matter of litigation.

(3.) The Senate and the Syndicate are two of the authorities enumerated in S.17 of the Act. The power to appoint Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff of the University is vested in the Syndicate by sub-sec. (2) (a) of S.22 of the Act. The procedure prescribed for the appointment of a Reader for any subject in the University service is governed by S.28(2) of the Act, which prescribes that the Board of Appointment should first consider the case of persons who have to be appointed as Readers and then make appropriate recommendations to the Syndicate in that behalf. On receipt of the recommendations of the Board of Appointment, the Syndicate is required to make the appointments on the basis of such recommendations. S.20 of the Act deals with the powers and functions of the Senate. The power of making any appointment to any post in the University service is not one of the enumerated powers under sub-sec. (2) of S.20.Sub-sec.(1) of S.20, however, provides that the Senate shall be the supreme authority of the University and shall have the power to review the action of Sydicate and Academic Council save where the Syndicate or Academic Council has acted in accordance with the powers conferred upon it under this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations and shall exercise all the powers of the University not otherwise provided for by this Act or the Statutes. Relying upon the above subsection, Shri S. K. Venkataranga Tyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner, who was a member of the Senate which was the suprtme authority of the University, was entitled to bring up before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution any illegal action of any of the authorities of the University and request the Court to quash the same and to issue appropriate directions in that behalf, even though the petitioner may not have any other kind of interest, personal or fiduciary. The question for consideration in this writ petition, therefore, is, whether the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S.20 clothe the petitioner with sufficient interest to do so.