D.S. REDDY versus CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 09-12-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

D.S. REDDY 
v. 
CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY & ORS. 
December 9, 
1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., J.C. SHAH, S. M. SJKRI, V. RAMASWAMI 
AND C.A. VAIDJALINGAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 
Article 14-Appellant appoimed Vice·Chan-
ce//or under s. 12(1) of Osmania 
University 
Act, 1959 for 5 years-
A-nding Act II of 1966 by new s. 
13(1) reducing term of office of 
Vice.ChancellorS to 3 years and by new s. 12(2) providing procedure for 
their removaJ--Second 
Amending 
Act XI of 1966 
introducing new 
s. 13A providing for appointment of new Vice-Chancellor within 90 days 
in place ·of appellant-Thus benefit of s. 12(2) ands. 13(1) denied to 
appellant-Whether classification of existing Vic!!-Chancellor and future 
appointees justified or discrimbuuory. 
As a result of the Osmania University (Amendment) Act Il of 1966, 
s. 12(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959, was amended to provide 
for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor alone; in 
s. 12 ( 2) a provision was introduced whereby he could only be removed 
from office by an order of the Chancellor passed on the ground of mis-
behaviour or incapacity after enquiry by a person who was or had been 
a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court and after the Vic<>-
Chancellor had been given an opportumty of making his representation 
against such removal Section 13 ( 1) of the 1959 Act was also amended so 
as to reduce the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor from 5 to 3 years. 
The 1959 Act was again amended later in 1966 by the Osmania 
University (Second Amendment) Act XI of 1966. 
Section 5 of thi5 
amending Act in1roduced a new s. 13A into the 1959 Act whereby it wa.< 
provided that tho person then holding the office of Vice-Chancellor could 
only hold that office until a new Vice-Chancellor was appointed; and that 
sucn new appointment must be made within 90 days of the commence· 
ment of the Act whereupon the old Vice-Chancellor would cease to hold 
office. 
1be appellant filed a writ petition claiming, Inter alia, that s. 5 of the 
_.,.,d amending Act introducing the new s. 13A was discriminatory u 
against him and tmorefore violative of Art. 14. The High Court dismissed 
the petition. 
In the appeal to the Supreme c.ourt, 
it was contended on behalf of 
the respondents that as the tenm of office had beeo reduced to 3 yeaB 
by the first amending Ad., the legislature in order to give elf«t to this 
provision and to enable fresh appointments to be made under the Act~ 
bad enacted s. !3A which bad, necessarily, to apply to a pel'SOll like the 
appellant who was in aftice at the time when 
the provi51ons came into 
force. 
Such provisions could not, in the nature of things. apply to Vice-
Cbancellors who were to be appointed in future; 
the appellant was ap-
pointed from a panel submitted by a committee 
constituted under the 
unamended s. 12(2) whereas future Vice-Chancellors were to be appoint-
ed by the Chancellor alone; furthermore, 
the appellant had been the 
V~ancellor for 7 years. 
Having regard to these circumstances tho 
legislature had chosen to treat the appellant as a class by himodf and had 
differentiated him from persons lo be appointed Vi....Cbancellors in the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
. 
' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
I 
D. s. REDDY v. CHANCELLOR (Vaidialingam, J.)' '215 
future; that such classification was reasonable and had a rational relation 
to the object sought to be achieved by the sec;ood amending Act I.e. 
bringing about uniformity in the tenure of 3 years of office for all Vico-
CbanceJlors; that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of s. 12(2) 
and the legislature was competent to enact s. 13A so as to give effect to 
the amended provisions as early as possible. 
HELD : Section 5 of the second amending Act (XI of 1966) introduc-
ing s. 13A into the 1959 Act was discriminatory and therefore violative 
of Art. 14. [232 E] 
There was no intelligible differentia on the basis of which a classifi-
cation of Vice-Chancellors into two categories i.e. the appellant as the 
then existing Vice-Chancellor and the future Vice-Chancellors to be ap-
pointed under the Act,. could be justified. The term of office of three 
years for the Vice-Chancellor had already been fixed by the first amend-
ing Act. Therefore the differential principle adopted for terminating the 
appellant's service under s .. 13A introduced by the second amending Act 
and directed as against the appellant alone could not be considered to 
have a rational relation to the

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