9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Standing Committee's decisions based on quorum. 2. Interpretation of Regulations 31 and 32.1 of the Punjab University Calendar. 3. Jurisdiction of the Standing Committee with less than full membership participation. Summary: 1. Validity of the Standing Committee's decisions based on quorum: The Supreme Court examined whether the decisions of the Standing Committee, which were made by only two out of its three members, were valid. The High Court had set aside these decisions, arguing that all three members should have participated. The Supreme Court held that the Syndicate, which appointed the Standing Committee, had the incidental power to fix the quorum for its meetings. The quorum, defined as the minimum number of members necessary to transact business validly, was fixed at two by the Syndicate. The Court found no valid reason to challenge this quorum fixation, emphasizing that the Syndicate's power to appoint the Committee inherently included the power to determine its quorum. 2. Interpretation of Regulations 31 and 32.1 of the Punjab University Calendar: The Supreme Court analyzed Regulations 31 and 32.1, which govern the appointment and decision-making process of the Standing Committee. Regulation 31 allows the Syndicate to appoint a Standing Committee annually to handle cases of misconduct and unfair means in examinations. Regulation 32.1 states that if the Committee is unanimous, its decision is final, and if not, the matter must be referred to the Vice-Chancellor. The Court clarified that the unanimity referred to in Regulation 32.1 pertains to the members present and forming the quorum, not necessarily all appointed members. Thus, the decisions made by the two-member quorum were valid as long as they were unanimous. 3. Jurisdiction of the Standing Committee with less than full membership participation: The respondents argued that the decisions were without jurisdiction since not all three members participated. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the quorum fixation did not preclude all members from attending meetings. Notice of meetings was given to all members, and it was up to each member to attend. The Court found no evidence that the third member's absence would have changed the unanimous decisions of the two present members. The Court emphasized that Regulation 32.1 does not affect the Syndicate's power to fix the quorum and that the regulation's purpose is to ensure unanimity among the members present, not to mandate full participation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's majority decision, and upheld the minority judgment. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed, affirming the validity of the Standing Committee's decisions made by the two-member quorum. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial consistency and the established precedents supporting the validity of decisions made by a quorum of two members. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
|
