JAGDISH PANDEY versus THE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 17-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGDISH PANDEY 
v. 
THE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF BIBAR & ANR. 
August 17, 1961 
B 
[K. 
N. 
WANCHOO, C. J., R. S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bh~gatpv.; and 
Ranchi) (Amendment) Act 13 of 1962, s. 4-Whether ,discriminatory 
and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution-Le.ct;irer s quahficat~on 
of third c!ass masters degree deemed to be minimum q™>hfication 
as a second c!ass degree by University Statute-Whet~er ftLCh deem-
ing continued to. entitle him to _be appointed to principaLs post atw 
C requiring second c!ass degree. 
The. appellant was appointed as a lect'!rer 1~n 1952 of a non-Gc;>V-
ernment College affiliated to the Bihar University and later as Pnn-
cipal 'of another college, Both these appointments were approved by 
the University. 
The Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur 
and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act 13 of 1962 came into force in Apr:! 
D 19R2, s. 4 of which provi'ded that every appointment, dismissal, etc., 
of any teacher of a college not belonging to the State Government 
affiliated to the University made after the 27th November, 1961 and 
before 1st March, 1962 shall be subject to such order as the Chancel-
lor of the University, on the recommendation of the University Ser-
vice Commission, may pass. Thereafter, the appellant received an 
order dated August 8, 1962, from the Chancellor to the effect that be 
had been pleased to approve under s. 4 of the Act, on the recommen-
E daticm af the Commission, the appointment of the appellant as P~:n­
cipal till November 30, 1962 or till the candidate recommended by 
tho Comm:Ssion joined, whichever was earlier. 
Subsequently, as it was realised that the order of August 18. 1962 
might be successfully challenged on the ground that tlie aopellant 
had not been given an opportunity for a hearmg, the Commission 
gave the appellant a show-cause notice on November 8, 1962 and after 
F 
he was given a hearing the Chancellor passed another order on Feb-
ruary 18, 196~ wh~ch purported to modify the order ..,f August 18, 
1962; th emodificabon was to the effect that the appellant would be 
g..ven a year or two to sit for an examination and obtain a second 
class Mast~r·~ degree. which .was _the minimum qualification for the 
post of Pnncipal, fa;lmg which his services would he terminated. ,. 
. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challeng-
ing both ~he ord~rs of August 18, 1962 and February 18, 1963 on the 
e grounds, inter aha; (i) that under sub-rule (6) oJ Rule (1) of Chap. 
te~ 16 of ~he Statutes of the ,University, which provided that not-
wh-!,h~an.dmg any other requJ.rements the qualifications of a teacher 
a 
~ Y m service an~ confirmed befor~ the 1st July, 1962, shall be 
considered to be equivalent to the minimum qualifications for the 
post .he holds, the appellant must be deemed to have the minimum 
quahfic~tcms fl:J! a lecturer i.e. a Second Class Master's degree and 
B fthat t~is deem:ng w'!u!;d contin11e when he was appointed· Prl~ipa! 
or which also the mirnmum qualification was a Second Clas M 
t~r's ~egree with certain experienre; (ii) that s. 4 of the Aci ,:s-
violat1ve of Art, 14 of the Constitut!on. and (iii) that the order ~ 
August 18, ~962 violated the prunciples of natural justice and it could 
nL-~ be modified after November 30, 1962 as it had worked itself out 
i• (N)ISC!-l7(a) 
231 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] l s.c.R. 
and there was no power of review given to the Chancellor under A 
s. 4. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : allowing the appeal, 
(i) The Chancellor's order of February 18, 1963 givJng the appel-
lant time to appear at an examination to enable him to obtain a se-
cond class Master.'s degree failing which his sel'vices would be termi-
nated was invalid. 
The appellant must be deemed to have the minimum qualifica-
tion of a second class Master's degree by virtue of sub-rule (6) of 
the Statutes and as such he was qualified for appointment as Prin-
cipal. Sul>-r. (6) must be read as a protecoion-to the teachers who were 
appointed and confirmed before July 1, 1952 and by fiction it gave 
them the minimum qualification even though they may not actual-
B 
ly have di!. That minimum qualification must therefore remain with 
C 
them always fot the future. for there was nothing to show that ;1 
,vas taken away. [241G-242A], 
(ii) Section 4 was not discriminatory and v

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