LexRAM PAL CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
c
D
G
u
559
RAM PAL CHATURVEDI
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
September 24, 1969
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.]
University of Raiast/u;n-Medical Colleges-Appointment of Princi·
pal-Teaching qualification laid down in Ordinance No. 65 made by
Senate of University under powers given by University of Rajputana Act
1946--Such qualifications relaxed retrospectively by proviso to R. 30(4)
of Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 maae by
Governor of Rai«sthan under Art. 309 of Constitution of India, 1950-
Rule 30( 4) or Ordinance 65 which to prevail~rdinance 65 whether a
provision niade under an Act within the meaning of Art, 309-Rule 30(4)
of Collegiate Rules whether mala fide.
The appellant filed writ petitions in the High Court of Rajai.than
challenging the appointment of the Principals of three Medical Colleges
affiliated to the University of Rajasthan on the ground that the per>ons
appointed did not have the teaching experience nacessary for these posts as
laid down in Ordinance No. 65 made by the Senate of the Um"'rsl!y
under the University of Rajputana Act, 1946. The apµointments were
.defended on the.basis of the proviso to sub-r. (4) of R 30 of the Rajasthan
Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 made by the Governor
of Rajasthan under Art. 309 of the Constitution. SubJr. (4) was added
to R. 3() of the, Collegiate Branch Rules with retrospective effect during
the pendency of the appellant's writ petitions and provided that two years'
service rendere<l in the speciality would be reckoned as equivalent to one
year'• teaching experience. In view of this sub-rule, the High
Court
dismissed the appellant's wr~t petitions. In app~i.s to this Court by certt-
ficate. it was contended on behalf of the appellants that {i) Ordmanoc
No. 65 must prevail over R. 30(4) in the matter of teaching exnerience
·required; (iil the retrospective amendment of R. 30 by the additien of
· Stib.£. ( 4) was ma/a fide; (iii) the provision in Ordinance 65 as regards·
~teaching experience was mandatory,
HELD : Dismissing the appeals,
(i) The contention that the proviso to sub-r. ( 4) must yield to the
Ordinance could not be accepted.
The Collegiate Bl .nch Rules havmg
been made pursuant to the power under Art. 309 of the Constitution
must be given full effect subject to the provisions of any Act made by the
appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and condicions of service
of penont appointed to the Rajas than Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) .
:Such Act need not specifically deal with the State MeJical Service but it
must be an Act as contemplated by Art. 309 by or ·under which provis10n
is made regulating the recruitment and conditions of service taking withm
iits :fohl the said Medical services, [564 0-E]
Ol'dinance 65 made under the University of Rajputana Act and !1e•li.ng
inter alia with "emoluments and conditions
of service
of U1uvcrs1ty
teachers" was not a provision under an Act regulating the recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed t'? R.ajasthan Medi~al S.erv1~
as contemplated by Art. 309 of the. Const1"!t1on.
The. Um,·ersity. ~·
Rajputana Act falls under Entry 11 List II which deal$ with the •ub1e..:t
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970]2 S.C.R.
'education including universities' and not under entry 41 List II dealing
\Vith 'State Public services'.
The field of operation of the Ordinance iJ
restricted to the question of affiliation of the Colleges concerned ~vith the
Ra_iasthan University.
If there -is any violation of a provision of the
Ordinance, then that may appropriately be taken into
account by
the
Rajasthan University for the purpose of withdrawing or refusing to con ..
tmue affiliation of the colleges in question.
No such action had been
taken by the University in the present case. The persons appointed could
not be said to be holding their posts without authority~ of law. TI1e appel-
lant had no right to challenge their appointments. [564 G, 565 Dl
(ii) The plea of 1nala fide was unsustainable.
There was noU.:ing to
shovl that r. 30( 4) was made for a collateral purpose in coloufabie exer-
cise of the rule making oower. [565 Fl
B
fin view of the above findings no opinion was expressed on the question
C:
whether the powers of Ordinance No. 65 were mandatory].
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1818
to 1820 of 1968.
Appeals from the judgm~nt and order dExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.