BHAGWATSARAN AUDHOLIA Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 186 of 1965.

(2.) THE controversy raised by these two petitions is on the question whether Shri Bhagwatsaran Audholia, who is the petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 104 of 1965, is entitled to function as a member of the Court and the Academic Council and as the Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Head of the Department of Studies in Commerce in the University of Jabalpur. Shri Audholia claims that he is entitled to so function and prays for the issue of a direction commanding the opponents to recognize him as a member of the Court and the Academic Council and as the Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Head of the Department of Studies in Commerce and to issue to him notices of the meetings of the above bodies that may be held. THE petitioners in the other case, on the other hand, contend that Shri Audholia has not the status claimed by him and that the order of the Chancellor dated 9th February 1985 holding that he is entitled to continue as a member of the University Court is illegal and ask for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Chancellor and also a direction in the nature of quo warranto for ousting Shri Audholia front the membership of the University Court. R F.-17.

(3.) IT appears that some time after 1st July 1984 some members of the University Court raised before the Vice-Chancellor the issue whether Shri Audholia having proceeded on leave from 1st July 1964 for a period exceeding six months was entitled to continue as a member of the Court and of the Academic Council and as the Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Head of the Department of Studies. They also addressed a letter to the Chancellor in that behalf. On this question being raised, the Vice-Chancellor by his letter dated 31st August/1st September 1964 referred the matter for decision to the Chancellor as required by section 45 of the Act. On 9th February 1965 the Chancellor addressed the following communication to the Vice-Chancellor intimating his decision in the matter referred to him under section 45. The communication ran thus-