CHETKAR JHA versus VISWANATH PRASAD VERMA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 07-05-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

586 
CHETKAR JHA 
V. 
VISWANATH PRASAD VERMA & ORS. 
May 7, 1970 
(J. M. SHELAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Cunstiturior. of India, 
1950, Art. 226-High Court's powers-
Certiorari. 
Patna University Act ~ of 1962-Appoilllment of Profes.-or-Master's 
clt•gree a necessar)J' qualification-Whether degree must be in sanie subject 
in respect of which appointment made-Vice-Chancellor advertising post 
after obtaining approval of Chancellor-Whether 
must again 
obtain 
approral if revised advertiseinent to be issued-Public Service Commis .. 
sion 11:hen. niay be asked to reconsider its ,:ecommendation, 
Minutes of 
Syndicate nzeeting-Efject of correction-Correction of 1ni11utes 
relating 
1.0 earlier resollltion does not result in fresh resolution. 
The Vice-Chancellor of Patna University after obtaining the apprnval 
of the Chancellor for filling up the vacancy for the post of Professor of 
Political Science by direct recruitment, got the post advertised through the 
Bihar PubJic Service Commission. The Public Service Commission issued 
Jn advertisement in which the required qualification was "first or second 
class ~raster's degree in the subject." Since the relevint University statute 
had no such requirement the Vice-Chancellor got published through the 
Commission another, advertisement in which the qualification mentioned 
\Vas .. first or second class Master's degree in Political Science or in 
an 
allied subject."' The Commission 
recommended the name of respondent 
No. 1 for appointment a'fter consulting two experts, only one of whom was 
present atathe interview. the other having sent his opinion by post. 
The 
Svndicate of the University at its meeting of May 7. !963 considered the 
Commission's recommendation. 
The minutes of the meeting as originaJly 
recorded stated the resolution said to have been passed by a majority of 
9 to 8 in the following terms : "Not to proceed with the quest'on of making 
t}ijs appointment". 
Consiruing- the Syndicate's decision to mean that the 
said candidate had not been approved for appointment the Vice-Chacellor 
requested the Public Service Commision to rcConsider its recommendation. 
This the Commission refused to do. 
At the next meeting of the Syndi-
cate on July 3. 1963. 16 out of the 17 members who .had attended the pre-
vious meeting \\'ere present. 
They authorised the correction of the minu~ 
tes of the last meeting to read "not to accept the recommendation of the 
Commission·· in place of the v,.rords "not to proceed' With the question of 
making- his appointment". Thereafter bv resolution it appointed respondent 
No. 1 to the post in auestion. 
Tl:Je aooellant me.de a reoresentation to the 
Chancellor of the Universitv challeneing the appointment. The Chancellor 
purpo•tino to act under s.:l(4) of the Patna Universitv Act 3 of 1962 
Jnnulled the Svndicate's resolution making the appointnient on the following 
~roun''"': (i) !hat the revised advertisement was unauthorised inasmuch as 
it \\'JS anainst fhe statute and Sought to amend it. as also because it was 
issueJ without the orior aoorov::i.1 of the Chancellor: (ii) that since only 
one of the exoerts associated 1.vith thf': selection wa<.: oresent at the interviews 
~.'.!6(~) of the Act w::i.<.: violated: (iii) th'.:lt the Vice-Chancellor's action in 
refcrrinq, th~ matter for reconsideration by the Commission \vas without 
1he authority of the syndicate and was not warranted under s 26(4): (iv) 
B 
c 
D 
p 
G 
H 
A 
It 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
I' 
C, JHA V. V, P. V,ERMA 
587 
that under a prior resolution of the ,syndi<;ate a decision taken Jt its meeting 
could no~ be f,evised for a period of six months therefrom; therefore' its. 
resolution of May 7, 1963 not accepting the recommendation <egarding the 
respon_dent. cq.\}lfi not .be substituFed by its resolution date~ July 3, 1963 
by which he was appointed. Respondent No. I challenged the Chancellor's 
order in High Court 'which held ii to b.e invalid. 
In appeal by certi·· 
ficate, 
' 
HELD~ '(i) In a· writ petition for certiorari a sup~riot court would not 
interfere on the mere ground of an erfdr of fact or even Of law, but if.~ 
the error of law is apparent on the record or consists of a misconstruction 
of a'jaw 'on which''a~sumption of jurisdiction is made which otherwise'd°oes 
not •fist, a certior(ll'I can issue. In the instant case the :chancellor on ·tha: 
four .gro~mds bh which he annulled the Syndicate's resolution approprtated 
to himself the jurisdiction· to i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.