VARANASAYA SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND ANR. versus DR. RAJKISHORE TRIPATHI AND ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 26-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG, JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

213 
VARANASA YA SANSKRIT 
VISHW A VIDYALA YA AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. RAJ KISH ORE TRIP ATHI AND ANR. 
November 26, 1976 
[ A. N. RAY, C.J. M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J 
Varanasava Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, I956, s. 13(7), Whether 
empowers Vice Chancellor to make· permanent appointment• without co11firn:a-
tio11 by normal appointing body-Whether prevails over power of Executirc 
Comm'ttee under s. 23 (I )(g). 
Civil Procedure Code, Order VI Rule 4, whether general allega:ions of col-
lusion satisfy requirements of. 
B 
c 
A permanent lecturer's post fell vacan~ in the appellant University, and the 
Executive Committee which ordinarily made the appointment undor s. 23 ( 1) 
(g) of the Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1956, not being 
in session, the Vice Chancellor exercised his emergency powers under s. 13 (7) 
of the Act to appoint the respondent on the recommendation of a 
Selection 
Committee of the Un'versity. 
Later, thei Executive CommJtee, when appnsed 
of the appointment, refused to treat it as permanent and decided to re-advertise 
D 
the post. 
Thei respondent's suit for 
permanent 
injunction · against the ter-
mination of his services was dismissed by the Trial Court but decreed on appeal. 
On second appeal, the High Court upheld the decree. 
The respondent contended that his appointment by the Vice 
Chancellor, 
made under s. 13(7), was permanent and could not be nullified by the Execu-
tive Committee as its resolution was collusive and inoperative. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : (I) The extraordinary power under s. 13 (7) of the Act arc intended 
for certain emergent situations necessitating "immediate action." The 
Vice 
Chancellor has to report the action taken to the authority or other body "which 
in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter." 
The object of such 
a report is to leave the final decision to that body 
when it does meet. 
The 
Executive Committee had the final power to appoint and to specify conditions 
of service under s. 23 ( 1) (g) of the Act. 
The powers of the Vice Chancellor 
were confined· to making a tentative decision which was subject to confirmation 
by t<he Executive Committee. 
[216 G-H; 217 B-C] 
(2) It is not enough to state, in general terms, that there was "collusion" 
without particulars. 
By general allegations of alleged collusion, the plaintiff-
respondent seemed to imply some kind of fraud, but no such particuiars 
of 
that fraud or collusion were given as would satisfy the requirements of Order 
VI Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. 
(217 E-F] 
Bislumdeo Narain & Anr. v. Seogeni Rai & Ors. (1951] S.C.R. 548 at 556, 
applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Oivil Appeal No. 473 of 1976. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
26-2-1976 bf the Allahabad High Court in 
Second 
Appeaa 
No. 
2068/75). 
D. P. Singh, R. P. Singh, L. R. Singh, Rajev Dutta and P. K. Jain, 
for the appellants and R .. 2. 
· 
E 
F 
G 
H 
214 
SUPkEME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
D. Mukherje~ and Amlan Ghosh, for respondent No. 1. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by 
BEG, J. 
The respondent was initially appointed as an Accountant 
on 10th July, 1969, in the Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya 
Varanas_i (herein.after referred to as 'the University'). On 4th Decem-
ber, 1969, he was transferri:;d to another post, that of a "Senior Assis-
tant''. In January, 1970, Dr. Shambhu Nath Singh, who was the per-
manent Lecturer in Hindi in the University proceeded on long leave, 
and the plaintiff-respondent, being already in the service of the Univer-
sity, was asked to teach classes for the time being. Applications were 
invited for filling up the, post of Dr. Singh. The advertisement said that 
~
the appointment was to be temporary but likely to be made rermanent 
later. 
The plaintiff-respondent, who was already officiating, also ap-
plied. 
He was temporarily appointed on 25th February, 1970. 
On 
'23rd April, 1970, the Registrar of the University gave the plaintiff-
respondent a notice that his temporary appointment would terminate 
on 30th April, 1970. 
The plain!iff-rcspondent promptly brought his 
first suit in the Court of Munsif City, Varanasi, to restrain the Univer-
sity from appointing any one else in his place; but, this suit was ulti-
mately dismissed. 
On 15th July, 1970, Dr. Singh had resigned from 
his post so that the permanent vacancy was there to be filled up. At 
that time, the pla

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