ISHWAR CHANDRA versus SATYANARAIN SLNHA & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 14-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

796 
ISHWAR CHANDRA 
v . 
.SATYANARAIN SlNHA & ORS. 
March 14, 1972 
[K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.) 
Universit;y of Saugar Act, 1946, s. 13(2)-Comml•tee of three 
to 
select pan\ll of names for pose of Vice.Chancel/or-Only two members 
of com1nittee present at meeting to selecl panel-In the absence of any 
provision as to quorum the recommendations of majority of members 
who are presenfl at the meeting is valid. 
From a panel of names 
recommended by a Selection 
Cpmmittee 
eonstituted under s. 13(2) of the University of Saugar Act, 
1946 the 
then 
Chancellor of the University 
appointed the 
appellant "' Vice-
Chancellor. 
Under Ordinaiu:e No. 1 of 1970 the Governor of Madhya 
Pradesh !>~came the Chancellor of the Cniversity. Exercising bis powers 
of review under s. 43A of the Act the Governor, as Chancellor, after 
notice to the appellant, set aside bis appointment as Vice..Cbancellor on 
the ground that only two out of the three 
members 
of the Selection 
Committee were present when bis name was included in the panel. The 
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. 
The High Court called 
fur too correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and 
the member who was absent at the m~ting. On the lnsis. of a Jetter 
written by the absent membelr to the Chairman, the High .Court came 
to the conclusion that the member had been deliberately kept out of the 
meeting and held that the Chancellor was justified in the opinion formed 
by him under s. 43(A). 
Allowing the appeal, this 8ourt, 
HELD: (i) The High Court sustained the order of the ChaI)cellor 
on grounds other than 
those relied upon by him in that order, 
[for 
dismissing the writ petition in Ii mine]. The order made by the Chancellor 
was based entirely on the legality of the meeting where only two of the 
three mpmbers were present. There was nothing to show that the corres-
pondence was persued l>y the Chancellor. 
Further, the correspondence 
did not support the assumption in the High Court's order that the Chair-
man. was trying to keep out any member from the meeting. [803 D-Gl 
• 
1 
(ii)' If for one ·reason or the other one of the members of th! Com-
mittee, after due notice, could not attend; it did not make the meeting 
of the others illegal. 
In such circumstances where there was no rule or 
regulation or any other provision for fixing quorum in the presence of 
the majority of the member_s would constitute a valid meeting and matters 
considered thereat could not be held to be invalid. [80l HJ 
C1VIL Al'!'ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 243 of 
'1971. 
Appeal biy special leave from the judg!llent and order dated 
September 3, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscel-
laneous Petition No. 256 of 1970. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JSHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 797 
A 
C. K. baphtary, L. M. Singhvi, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and 
B 
K: R. Nagaraja, for the appellant. 
B. Sen and/. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 
S. S. Khandujd, S. K. Dhingra and Promod Swaroop for res~ 
pondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, 1. 
This is an appeal by special leave 
c 
against the summary dismissal Of a Writ Petition filed by the 
appel!i;nt against the order cf the Chancellor of the Saugar Uni-
versity dated the 15th June 1970 by which his appointment ~s 
Vice-Chancellor of that University was cancelled. 
It may at the outset be mentioned that the appointment of th~ 
Vice-Chancellor of the Saugar University is made by the Chan-
cellor of that University under section 13 of the University of 
0 
Saugar Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from " 
panel of net less than three persons recommended by the Com-
mittee constituted under sub-section (2) of that section. 
The 
Committee to be constituted under sub-section (2) was to co.nsis1 
of three persons, two of whom shall ])~ elected by the Executive 
Council by single transferable vote from amongst pe•·sons n~t 
connected with the University or a College and the third shall b~ 
I. 
nominated by the Chancellor who was also empowered to appoint 
one of them as Chairman of the Committee. 
It is unnecessa · · 
to refer to other provisions of this section because these are not 
relevant for the purpose of this appeal. 
It appears that under 
the above provisions a Committee to submit a panel of names for 
the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for the University was duly 
F 
collstituted consisting of tw

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