Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1961 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1961 (12) TMI 80 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the Statutes framed by the University under s. 20 of University of Bihar Act have or have not the force of law? Whether a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution can issue against the Governing Body of the College i.e., whether the appellant has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents? Held that - According to the Statutes all appointments of teachers and staff have to be made by the Governing Body and no person can be appointed, removed or demoted except in accordance with Rules but the appellant has not shown that he has any right entitling him to get an order for appointment or reinstatement. Our attention has not been drawn to any Article in the Statutes by which the appellant has a right to be appointed or reinstated and if he has not that right he cannot come to Court and ask for a writ to issue. It is therefore not necessary to go into any other question. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Validity of the appointment process for the Principal of Nalanda College. 2. Allegations of irregularities in the appointment process. 3. Legal rights of the appellant under the University Statutes. 4. Authority of the Governing Body in making appointments. 5. Jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter. Validity of the appointment process for the Principal of Nalanda College: The case involved an appeal against the High Court of Patna's judgment dismissing a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution regarding the appointment of the Principal of Nalanda College. The appellant claimed to have been appointed as Principal in February 1958, followed by subsequent confirmations and resolutions. However, a new Principal was appointed in December 1960, leading to the appellant challenging the appointment process. The High Court held that the appellant's appointment lacked approval from the Syndicate, and the decision to advertise for the Principal's post was not a violation of the Statutes. The High Court further ruled that the appellant's participation in the selection process barred him from challenging the appointment of the new Principal, which was approved by the University. Allegations of irregularities in the appointment process: The appellant alleged that the appointment of the new Principal was invalid due to various reasons, including the lack of termination of his own appointment, improper delegation of appointment power, and his entitlement to promotion under the University Statutes. The respondents denied these allegations, arguing that the appellant's appointment lacked approval and that he could not challenge the new appointment after participating in the selection process. The High Court upheld the validity of the new Principal's appointment, emphasizing the approval by the University and the lack of protest from the appellant. Legal rights of the appellant under the University Statutes: A significant legal issue raised was whether the Statutes framed by the University under the University of Bihar Act had the force of law and if a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution could be issued against the Governing Body of the College. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the appellant to demonstrate a legal duty imposed by the Statutes and a corresponding legal right to enforce its performance. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish a right entitling him to appointment or reinstatement under the Statutes, thereby dismissing the appeal. Authority of the Governing Body in making appointments: The judgment clarified that all appointments of teachers and staff at the College were to be made by the Governing Body in accordance with the Rules. The appellant's lack of demonstrated right to appointment or reinstatement under the Statutes rendered his challenge to the appointment process legally untenable. The Court emphasized the absence of a legal basis for the appellant to seek a writ for appointment or reinstatement, thereby reinforcing the authority of the Governing Body in making appointments. Jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter: The High Court's jurisdiction was questioned concerning the legality of the appointment process and the appellant's challenge to the new Principal's appointment. The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was based on the lack of approval for the appellant's appointment and his participation in the selection process. The judgment upheld the High Court's ruling, emphasizing the legality of the new Principal's appointment approved by the University, thereby affirming the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter.
|