N P SRIVASTAYA Vs. HARI VINAYAK PATASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Chancellor of the Jabalpur University directing him to call upon the Executive Council of the University to elect two persona for being members of a committee to be constituted under Section 11 (2) of the Jabalpur University Act, 1956.

(2.) The controversy in the case is as to the legality of the direction issued by the Chancellor in November, 1961, to the Executive Council to elect one person to sit on the Committee in place of Shri Shriman Narayan. What has given rise to the contest is that some few months before the term of Shri Kunjilal Dubey as Vice-Chancellor was due to expire, the Chancellor called upon the Executive Council to choose its nominees under Section 11 (2) of the Act. This was on 3.1st January, 1961. Pursuant to this direction of the Chancellor, the Executive Council appointed Shri Shriman Narayan and Dr. Parija, Vice-chancellor of the Utkal University, as its nominee on the Committee contemplated by Section 11 (2). The Chancellor appointed the late Dr. Siddhanta, Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University, as his nominee on the Committee. This Committee submitted to the Chancellor a panel of three names on 22nd June, 1961. Out of this panel of names, the Chancellor Selected Dr. Mishra for appointment as Vice- Chancellor of the University. Before Dr. Mishra could enter upon the office of the Vice-Chancellor, the present petitioner along with Dr. S.C. Barat filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Chancellor appointing Mr. Mishra as Vice-Chancellor and for the issue of suitable directions to the Chancellor for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University in accordance with law. The validity of the order was challenged on the ground that the Committee, which the Chancellor constituted Under Section 11 (2), was not valid inasmuch as Shri Shriman Narayan, who was one of the members appointed by the Executive Council on the Committee, was disqualified from being a member as he was a member of the Managing Committee of the Govindram Sakseria Commerce College, Jabalpur, and that consequently the panel of names submitted by the said Committee was invalid and no person selected from that panel could be validly appointed as Vice-Chancellor to succeed Shri Kunjlal Dubey on the expiry of his term. That petition was allowed by us. We held that Shri Shriman Narayan was not qualified to sit on, the Committee as a nominee of the Executive Council; that the Committee was not, therefore, validly constituted; and further that the Committee being invalid, there existed no Committee in law for the purpose of Section 11 and the panel submitted by it was altogether ineffective. We quashed the Chancellor's order made on 14th August, 1961, appointing Dr. Mishra as the Vice-Chancellor and directed him to make a fresh appointment in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. (See Dr. S.C. Barat v. Hari Vinayak, 1961 MPLJ 1316 at p. 1329 ; (AIR 1962 Madh Pra 73 at p. 80)). Thereafter in November, 1961, the Chancellor directed the Executive Council to appoint, one person in place of Shri Shriram Narayan to act on the Committee of Selection for panel under Section 11. On receipt of this direction, the Executive Council elected one of our brother Judges, namely, the Honourable Shri Justice Naik, as a member of the Committee. The petitioner now contends that the Committee which the Chancellor had constituted previously and which submitted a panel of names leading to the appointment of Dr. Mishra as Vice- Chancellor became functus officio after it had submitted the panel; that while quashing the order of appointment of Dr. Mishra, this Court also held that the Committee which included Shri Shriman Narayan had no legal existence; and that therefore, when the Chancellor was directed by this Court to make a new appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with Section 11 he was bound to appoint a fresh committee of three persons and to command the Executive Council to elect two persons instead of one under Section 11(2) to sit on the Committee.

(3.) In order to consider the tenability of the above contention, it is first necessary to refer to the material provisions of Section 11. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides: