PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH versus VIJAY SINGH LAMBA ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1976] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 15-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
-
' 
-
I 
67 
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH 
A 
v. 
VIJAY SINGH LAMBA ETC. ETC. 
Avril 15. 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, V, R. KRISHNA IYER AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
B 
Quorun1-Fixing a quo'rum of 2 members in a committee of 3, does not 
·warrant all the three must be vresent for validity of any action of the committee 
-Punjab University Calendar, 1973, Vol. 11--RegultNions 31 and 32.1-lnter-' 
pretatidn of. 
Regulations 31 and 32.l of the Punjab University Calendar 1973, Volume II 
are as under : 
· 
' 
C 
"31. The Syndicate shall appoint annually a standing committee to 
deal with cases of the alleged misconduct and use of unfair means in 
connection with examinations; 
32.1. When the committee is unanimous, its decision shall be final 
except as provided in S. 32.2. If the Committee is not unanimous, 
the matter shall be referred to the Vice-Chancellor who shall either 
.:lecide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for decision". 
D 
By virtue of the powers vested in the syndicate, the Punjab University 
appointed a standing committee under Regulation 31 consisting of a retired 
high court judge, an Advocate who was formerly a minister of State of 
Punjab & the Registrar of the University, It also resolved, by its Resolutioh 
date-d 17th August 1971, that two members shall form the quorum for the. 
meetings of the standing committee appointed under Regulation 31. For 
adopting unfair practices in the examination, respondents were disqualified by 
the Committee, in all the sittings of which. only two out of the three mem-
bers were present. The respondents contended by their writ petitions that the 
decisions of the Standing Committee were without jurisdiction in as much as 
all the three members of the Standing Committee had not taken part in the 
meetings in \Vhich the decisions to disqualify them were taken. 
By a majority 
of 2 to 1, the High Court set aside the decisions taking the view that despite 
the c:rcumstance that two members of the committee formed the quorum, the 
impugned decisions were vitiated by the fact that only 2 and not all the 3 
n1embers of the committee participated in the proceedings. 
Allowing the appeals by certificate, the Court, 
HELD : (1) The Constitution of the Standing Committee is indisputably 
\Vithin the powers of the Syndicate under Regulation 31. 
The Syndicate which 
had the power to appoint the Standing Committee had the incidental power to 
fix the quorum for the meetings of the Standing Committee. 'Quorum' deno-
tes the minimum number of members of any body of persons whose presence 
is necessary in order to enable that body to transact its business validly so 
that its acts mav be lawful. It is wholly inappropriate to draw on the Consti-
tution of judiciil tribunals as a parallel. In the ~tant cas~, the syndicate by 
non1inating 3 persons to be members of the Standing Comm~ttee, but by resolv-
ing that 2 of them would validly constit~te the st~nding committee, did no 
more than provide that though the Standmg Committee may be composed of 
3 persons, any 2 of them could validly and effectively transact the bu.sines< of' 
and oh behalf of the Committee. [70 &F, 71-A-CJ 
(ii) By the quorum, a minimum number of members of the committee 
mnst be present in order that its proceedings ll!ay be lawful, 
~ut that d~s 
not mean that more than the minimu!ll. are denied an opportunity to ~arhc1-
pate in the delibeTations and the dec1s1on 1 of the committee. There is 
no 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] SUPPLEMENTARY 
warrant for the hypothesis that had the third member attended the meetings 
be would have dissented from the decision of the 2 other members so as to 
necessitate a reference to the Vice Chancellor under Regulation 32.1. [71 F-G-
72-AB] 
(iii) When Regulation 32.1 speaks of the committee being unanimous, it 
refers to the unanimity of the members who for the time being are sitting on 
the committee and who, by forn;tin21 the quorum can validly ind lawfully dis-
charge the functions of the Committee. The fixation of quorum neither makes 
Regulation 32.1 a dead letter nor does it affect its ~pplication or utility. The 
fixation of quorum by the Syndicate violates neither the letter nor the spirit 
of that Regulation. 
[72 C-D, E, F] 
(iv) Regulation 32.1 is aimed at conferring finality on decisions of the 
comn1ittee if they are unanimous and at leaving the validity and: priority of a 
disSenting decision to the judgment of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.