1972 (3) TMI 110 - SC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the meeting held by the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
2. Validity of the Chancellor's order canceling the appellant's appointment.
3. High Court's dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the meeting held by the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor:
The appellant's appointment as Vice-Chancellor was challenged on the grounds that the meeting of the Selection Committee, held on 4th April 1970, was attended by only two out of three members, thus questioning its legality. The Supreme Court noted that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is made by the Chancellor under Section 13 of the University of Saugar Act, 1946, from a panel recommended by a Committee constituted under Sub-section 2 of that Section. The Committee was duly constituted, but Justice T.P. Naik was unable to attend the meeting. The remaining two members, Shri G.K. Shinde and Shri C.B. Agarwal, met and submitted a panel of names, from which the Chancellor appointed the appellant. The Court emphasized that sufficient notice was given to all members, and the absence of one member did not invalidate the meeting. It was held that in the absence of any rule or regulation specifying a quorum, the presence of the majority constituted a valid meeting.

2. Validity of the Chancellor's order canceling the appellant's appointment:
The Chancellor, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, canceled the appellant's appointment on the grounds that the meeting held on 4th April 1970 with only two members was not legal. The Supreme Court found that the Chancellor's decision was based solely on the legality of the meeting. The Court observed that the Chancellor's order did not consider any deliberate attempt to exclude Justice Naik from the meeting. The correspondence between the Committee members showed that the Chairman, Shri Shinde, had made genuine efforts to fix a convenient date and place for the meeting. The Court concluded that the Chancellor's order was not justified as the meeting was legal, and there was no rule requiring all members to be present. The Court referenced Halsbury's Laws of England to support the proposition that in the absence of a specified quorum, the majority's presence constitutes a valid meeting.

3. High Court's dismissal of the Writ Petition:
The High Court dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition in limine, without a detailed examination of the relevant facts. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that the High Court delved into the correspondence to sustain the Chancellor's order on grounds not relied upon by the Chancellor. The Court emphasized that the High Court's assumption that the Chairman deliberately excluded Justice Naik was not warranted by the correspondence. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's dismissal of the Writ Petition was unjustified and that the appellant's appointment was valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs against respondent 3, setting aside the Chancellor's order revoking the appellant's appointment. The appellant was declared to have been validly appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Saugar University from 22nd June 1970.