1967 (8) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur, and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act, 1962 under Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of the order dated August 18, 1962, and subsequent order dated February 18, 1963, under principles of natural justice.
3. Interpretation of Chapter 16, Rule (1), sub-rule (6) of the Statutes regarding minimum qualifications for the post of Principal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 4 under Article 14:
The appellant contended that Section 4 of the Act was ultra vires as it violated Article 14 of the Constitution due to arbitrary dates and uncanalised powers conferred on the Chancellor. The Court held that the dates mentioned in Section 4 were not arbitrary but were chosen to address specific irregularities reported during a particular period. The Court reasoned that the dates had a rational nexus with the object to be achieved, thus upholding the classification as valid. Additionally, the Court read down Section 4 to imply that the Chancellor's power was limited to scrutinizing appointments, dismissals, etc., to ensure compliance with the University Act and related regulations. This interpretation ensured that Section 4 did not confer arbitrary powers and was not discriminatory under Article 14.

2. Validity of Orders under Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the order dated August 18, 1962, violated principles of natural justice as he was not heard before the order was passed. The Court acknowledged that the initial order was indeed passed without a hearing, which would render it invalid. However, subsequent proceedings provided the appellant an opportunity to be heard, culminating in the order dated February 18, 1963. The Court interpreted this as a fresh order rather than a review, thus complying with natural justice principles. Consequently, the order of February 18, 1963, was upheld as valid.

3. Interpretation of Chapter 16, Rule (1), sub-rule (6) of the Statutes:
The appellant contended that under sub-rule (6), his qualifications should be deemed equivalent to the minimum qualifications required for the post of Principal. The High Court had held that this sub-rule only applied to the post he held at the time of confirmation, i.e., a lecturer, and not for future promotions. The Supreme Court disagreed, interpreting sub-rule (6) as providing a permanent equivalence for qualifications of teachers confirmed before July 1, 1952, for all future appointments. This interpretation aimed to protect the interests of such teachers, ensuring their qualifications were deemed equivalent to the minimum required for any higher post, including that of a Principal. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant was deemed to have the necessary qualifications for the Principal's post and quashed the order requiring him to obtain a second-class Master's degree.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the Chancellor's order dated February 18, 1963. The appellant was deemed to have the necessary qualifications for the Principal's post by virtue of sub-rule (6) of the Statutes. The appellant was awarded costs from the respondent University.