COUNCILFORADVANCEMENTAND RESTORATIONOFEDUCATION Vs. CHANCELLOR BABA BHIMRAO AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing respondent No. 3 to show cause as to under what autnority he has been acting as Vice Chancellor Baba Bhimrao Ambedkar University (hereinafter referred to as the University) and for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mundamus directing the respondents to appoint a Vice Chancellor in terms ot Section 10(1) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 Admittedly, one Dr. Balram Singh was the Vice Chancellor of the University His term expired on 25.6.93 The Chancellor of the University by reason of a notification dated 24.6.93 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application appointed respondent No. 3 who is Commissioner of Tirhut Division as Vice Chancellor of the University in addition to his own duty in purported exercise of power under Section 13(2) of the said Act.

(2.) Mr. Prasad. learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the provision of Sections 10 A 13 of the Act and made tne following submissions :- (i) Section 10(1) of the said Act mandates that a Vice Chancellor of a University must be a person reputed for his scholarship and academic interest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the words used in Section 10(1) of the Act leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever that such provision is mandatory one. According to the learned counsel although in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act the Chancellor has been conferred with power to fill up the vacancy of the post of Vice Chancellor caused due to resignation, death, completion of the terms of any other reason but in terms thereof he is only omitted to make arrangement for performance of the duty of the office of the Vice Chancellor, and thus such appointment must be in conformity thereof with the another in substantial compliance of provision under Section 10(1) of the Act or in any event must be held to be for a short tenure According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 is continuing in office despite the fact that more than nine months have already elapsed.

(3.) In support of the contention that Section 10(1) of the Act Is mandatory in nature, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of M Pentiah and others v. Muddala Veeramallappa and others, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1107 and Lachmi Narain etc v. Union of India & others, reported in AIR 1976 SC 714.