1970 (5) TMI 70 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revised advertisement.
2. Validity of the interviews conducted by the Public Service Commission.
3. Authority of the Vice-Chancellor to refer the matter back for reconsideration.
4. Legality of the alteration of the minutes of the Syndicate meeting.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to issue certiorari.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Revised Advertisement:
The Chancellor annulled the Syndicate's resolution on the ground that the revised advertisement, which substituted the words "in the subject" with "in Political Science or in any allied subject like History and Economics," effectively amended the University Statute. The Chancellor argued that such an amendment could only be made by framing a new statute under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, and not unilaterally by the Vice-Chancellor. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Statute did not specify that the Master's degree had to be "in the subject" for which the appointment was made. The Vice-Chancellor's revised advertisement was intended to correct the error in the Commission's original advertisement, which was inconsistent with the Statute. The Court concluded that the Vice-Chancellor did not modify the Statute but clarified its correct interpretation, thus the revised advertisement was valid.

2. Validity of the Interviews Conducted by the Public Service Commission:
The Chancellor held that the interviews were invalid because one of the two required experts was not present. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Section 26(2) of the Act required the experts to be "associated" with the Commission, which did not necessarily mean their physical presence at the interviews. The experts could provide their advice by post or other means. The Court found that the Commission had the benefit of expert advice as required, and thus the interviews and subsequent recommendation were valid.

3. Authority of the Vice-Chancellor to Refer the Matter Back for Reconsideration:
The Chancellor argued that the Vice-Chancellor acted without the Syndicate's authority in referring the matter back to the Commission. The Supreme Court found that the Syndicate had indeed decided not to accept the Commission's recommendation on May 7, 1963. This decision required the matter to be referred back to the Commission under Section 26(4) of the Act. The Vice-Chancellor's action was a necessary consequence of the Syndicate's decision and did not require further approval.

4. Legality of the Alteration of the Minutes of the Syndicate Meeting:
The Chancellor held that altering the minutes of the May 7, 1963, meeting on July 3, 1963, constituted a revision of the earlier decision, which was not allowed within six months under a prior resolution of the Syndicate. The Supreme Court found that the alteration was to correct an inaccuracy in the minutes and not to change the decision itself. The Court held that minutes could be altered before being signed to reflect the actual decision taken, and no objection was raised by the members present during the alteration. Thus, the alteration was valid.

5. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Issue Certiorari:
The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue certiorari as the Chancellor's order did not involve any jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that a superior court could issue certiorari if there was an apparent error of law on the record or a misconstruction of a law affecting jurisdiction. The Court found that the Chancellor's annulment of the Syndicate's resolution was based on a misinterpretation of the Act and the University Statute, thus justifying the High Court's issuance of certiorari.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the Chancellor's order, finding that the revised advertisement, the interviews, the Vice-Chancellor's referral of the matter, and the alteration of the minutes were all in accordance with the Act and the University Statutes. The Chancellor had no jurisdiction to annul the Syndicate's resolution, and the High Court was correct in its interpretation and issuance of certiorari. The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.