KASHI NATH MISRA Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition filed by Sri Kashi Nath Misra, M. L. A., the order of the Chancellor, respondent No. 1, dated 26-2-1965, appointing under Section 11(1) of the Allahabad University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the respondent No. 2, Sri R. K. Nehru, as the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University, is challenged. It is not necessary to mention all the facts given in the writ petition and the affidavits filed by the parties because there is practically no dispute over them and the questions raised before us being entirely legal, do not require any consideration of question of fact. We would, therefore, give only such facts as would contribute to a correct decision of the questions of law raised before us. The Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University is a whole-time officer. Section 11 of the Act deals with the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. That provision reads:-- "11(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from amongst the persons whose names are submitted to him by the Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (4). (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall, except as otherwise provided, hold office for a period of three years but may relinquish office ay resignation in writing addressed to the Chancellor. The resignation shall ordinarily be delivered to the Chancellor sixty days prior to the date on which the Vice-Chancellor wishes to be relieved. (8) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), the emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be such as are, or may be, prescribed by Statutes. (4) (i). The Committee referred to in Sub-section (1) shall consist of three persons, namely- (a) one person, not being a person who is connected with the University, a College, an Associated College, a Constituent College or a Hostel, to be elected by the Executive Council; (b) another person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court; and (c) a third person to be appointed by the Chancellor who shall also be the Convener of the Committee; (ii) The Committee shall, as far as may be, at least thirty days before the date on which a vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor is due to occur by reason of expiry of term or resignation under Sub-section (2) and also whenever so required by the Chancellor, submit to the Chancellor the names of three persons suitable to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor. The Committee shall, while submitting the names, also forward to the Chancellor a concise statement showing the academic qualifications and other distinctions of each of the said three persons, but shall not indicate any order of preference. (5) Where a vacancy in the office of Vice-Chancellor occurs or is likely to occur by reason of leave, or any cause, other than resignation or expiry of term, the Registrar shall report the fact forthwith to the Chancellor, who shall- (i) in case the vacancy is or is likely to last for a period exceeding six months, take steps for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4); (ii) in case the vacancy is for a period of six months or less, appoint any suitable person to the office of Vice-Chancellor. (6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Section, me Chancellor may, in any case of emergency, of which the Chancellor shall be the sole judge and in any case where the vacancy cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) appoint any suitable person to the office of Vice-Chancellor. Provided that no appointment under this sub-section shall be made for a period of more than six months. Provided further that the appointment so made shall determine on appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4). Explanation--A vacancy in the office of Vice-Chancellor caused under Section 8 of the U. P. Universities Act, 1961, shall also be deemed to be an emergency for the purposes of this Section. (7) Where an appointment is made under Sub-section (6), the Chancellor shall, as soon as may be, take steps for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4). (8) Till such time as an appointment a made by the Chancellor under Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (6), the Registrar shall carry on the current duties of the Vice-Chancellor but he shall not preside at any meeting of the University Authorities."

(2.) THE Executive Council elected Shri Sri Prakash, the Governor appointed Sri C. D. Deshmukh and the Chief Justice. Sri M. C. Desai, nominated himself in the Committee constituted under Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the selection committee). THE term of the predecessor of Sri R. K. Nehru, Dr. Bal Bhadra Prasad, was to expire on 17-10-1964. THE selection committee had already been constituted, but the names had not been submitted, with the result that the Governor appointed Dr. Bal Bhadra Prasad for a period of six months under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act. Before the Committee could submit names to the Chancellor, its constitution was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 4586 of 1964: (AIR 1968 All 45). That petition came up for hearing before R. S. Pathak, J. He held that the Chief Justice could nominate himself, but the election of Shri Sri Prakash was illegal. He, however, did not issue the writ on the ground that the illegality in the election of Shri Sri Prakash was cured by the provisions of Section 45 of the Act.

(3.) THE learned Advocate-General placed reliance upon the circumstance that twentytwo out of twentythree members of the Executive Council reside at Allahabad and the agenda was served on them on 5th May, 1964. He, therefore, contended that those members knew on 5th May, 1964 that one of the purposes for which the meeting was being convened was to hold the election of the representative of the executive Council to the selection committee. Again, placing reliance upon the circumstance that the agenda of the meeting was despatched by post to the twentythird member, Sri Madan Mohan, at his Meerut address, the learned Advocate-General asked up to draw the presumption that the agenda must have reached him on the 7th or the latest on the 8th May, 1964. He, therefore, contended that even Sri Madan Mohan must be presumed to have known that the election would be held in the meeting of the 9th of May, 1964. We are unable to agree with the learned Advocate-General that this was sufficient notice of the date of election. We have already held earlier that it is implicit in Section 11 (4)(i)(a) of the Act that the date of the meeting in which the election of the representative of the Executive Council is to be held must be given sufficiently in advance of the date. We have also held that it is equally implicit in Regulation 4 that the seven days' notice required by that provision should mention the business to be transacted at the meeting or should be accompanied by an agenda specifying the business to be transacted in the meeting. We cannot consider that four days' notice in the case of Allahabad members and one or two days' notice in the case of the Meerut member (and that too on the basis of a presumption) was sufficient compliance with either the provisions of Section 11(4) (i)(a) of the Act or Regulation 4. THE view that we are taking finds support from a Bench decision of this Court in Ram Saran Das v. Municipal Board, Bulandshahr: Writ Petn. No. 384 of 1959, dated 4-2-1960 (All), where this Court observed :-- "This want of circulation of the notice sufficiently before the date of the meeting invalidates the proceedings of that meeting altogether. When the regulation laid down a minimum period which must elapse between the circulation of the notice and the holding of the meeting, it has some purpose and that purpose would be defeated if the requirement is not strictly complied with."