9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (5) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , announced the necessary qualifications as under: First or second class Master's degree in the subject of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign university.... A little later, the Vice-Chancellor got published through the Commission another advertisement amending the earlier advertisement. The revised advertisement stated the required qualifications as under: First or second class Master's degree in Political Science or in an allied subject like History or Economics of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign university...., 3. As required by the Act, the State Public Service Commission had to recommend name or names of the candidates for the appointment. For this purpose two experts in the subject. Dr M.P Sharma of the Saugar University and Dr Bhaskaran of the Madras University, were to assist the Commission. At the interviews of the candidates taken by the Commission on March 4, 1963, Dr Sharma was present, but the other expert could not attend. His view, therefore, had to be communicated to the Commission by post. The Commission recommended Respondent 1 herein as the candidate suitable for the post. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that representation that the Syndicate had resolved not to proceed with the making of the appointment. Another circumstance indicating that the said minutes were not correctly drafted was that while the item of confirmation came up before the Syndicate on July 3, 1963, which, as aforesaid, was attended by 16 out of the 17 members who had participated in the previous meeting, none of those 16 members appears to have protested against the change in the language of the minutes on the ground that the resolution then passed was that the Syndicate would not proceed with the appointment, or that the resolution actually passed was not one refusing to accept the Commission's recommendation of Respondent 1. 6. Against the resolution, dated July 3, 1963, appointing Respondent 1, the appellant and Dr L.P Sinha, the Head of the Department of Political Science made representations to the Chancellor. Thereafter the Chancellor first called upon the Vice-Chancellor to let him have his comments on the points raised in the said representations. On July 15, 1963, the Vice-Chancellor furnished his comments. Thereafter the Chancellor issued show-cause notices to the appellant and the Vice-Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of (b) that the matter could be referred back to the Commission under Section 26(4). The Vice-Chancellor's action in referring the matter for reconsideration by the Commission was without the authority of the Syndicate and was not warranted under Section 26(4); (4) that under a prior resolution of the Syndicate, dated November 13, 1952, a decision taken at its meeting could not be revised for a period of six months therefrom. Consequently, the decision taken by the Syndicate at its meaning on May 7, 1963, not to proceed with the appointment could not be revised by the Syndicate before the expiry of six months, and that, therefore, the Syndicate's resolution of July 3, 1963, was invalid. 8. In the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 against the impugned order of the Chancellor the High Court quashed the said order and issued a certiorari on the ground that the order in question was passed on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and the University Statute. 9. In challenging the correctness and validity of the High Court's order, counsel for the appellant contended before us that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. Under Chapter XIV of the Statute, whenever an appointment had to be made the Vice-Chancellor had the power with the approval of the Chancellor to decide whether the post should be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment. 11. There is no dispute that the Vice-Chancellor had obtained such approval and the post was to be filled up by direct recruitment. As required by Section 26(1) of the Act, appointments of teachers and professors of the University could only be made on the recommendations made by the State Public Service Commission. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor sent to the Commission a requisition for advertisement for the post. In that requisition he set out, without any words of limitation or additional qualifications, Chapter XII of the Statutes which laid down the qualifications. In the advertisement issued by the Commission, however, that body introduced the words in the subject announcing thereby that the candidate must possess a first or second class Master's degree in Political Science. The insertion of those words of limitation clearly was not in conformity either with the requisition sent by the Vice-Chancellor or with Chapter XII of the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power to discharge all the functions of the University for carrying out the purposes of the Act and to exercise powers and perform the duties of any officer or authority of the University, subject, of course, to the previous approval of the Chancellor. This provision was made to carry on the university and its functions till the other authorities such as the Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council were duly constituted under the new Act. The appointment of a University Professor in place of Dr Muhar was obviously one of the functions of the University, which, subject to the Chancellor's approval, had to be performed by the Vice-Chancellor. Admittedly, the Vice-Chancellor had obtained such approval for filling up the vacancy by direct recruitment and also for the advertisement in terms of the Statute laying down the qualifications for the post. Once, therefore, such an approval had been obtained, no further approval would be necessary for the various consequential steps which would have to be taken to bring about the appointment and fill in the vacancy. Furthermore, the revision in the advertisement became necessary because the advertisement given by the Commission was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say of those outside the country. The denial of the right to vote to the experts has nothing to do with their having to be present or not. What is sought by the clause is that even if the experts happen to be present they cannot affect the decision of the Commission which is the exclusive decision of that body. The Chancellor clearly misinterpreted clause (iii) of section 26(2) when he thought that the denial of the right to vote to the experts therein indicated that they were required to be present at the time of the interviews. Admittedly, the Commission, as required by clause (iii), had the benefit of the advice of both the experts. The experts were, therefore, associated with the Commission and consequently the requirements of that clause were fulfilled, despite one of them not being present at the time of the interviews. The Chancellor was, therefore, in error when he held that the recommendation of the Commission was invalid, and therefore, the appointment based on it was also invalid. 15. Grounds 3 and 4 of the Chancellor involve a common question and may conveniently be dealt with together. It is true, as the Chancellor said, that on the recommendation made by the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly was not of a minor or a clerical error but constituted a substantial change. Minutes of a meeting are recorded to safeguard against future disputes as to what had taken place thereat. They are a record of the fact that a meeting was held and of the decision taken thereat. Usually they are written up after the termination of the meeting, often from rough notes taken by the person who is to draft them and then are placed before the next meeting for what is generally known as confirmation , though they are placed for verification and not for confirmation. Indeed, there is no question of any confirmation at the next meeting of a decision already taken, for, a decision once taken does not require any confirmation. Accordingly, when minutes of a meeting are placed before the next meeting the only thing that can be done is to see whether the decision taken at the earlier meeting has been properly recorded or not. The accuracy of the minutes and not the validity of the decision is, therefore, before the meeting. Once a decision is duly taken it can only be changed by a substantive resolution properly adopted for such a change. When, therefore, a decision is taken and is minuted a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required no further sanction of the Syndicate. Equally unsustainable was the view of the Chancellor that the alteration in the minutes on July 3, 1963 constituted a revision or a revision of the earlier decision or that such revision or revision could not be made before the expiry of six months as provided by the Rule passed by the Syndicate in 1952. In our view the revised advertisement, the remission of the matter to the Commission, the recommendation of Respondent 1 by the Commission and the proceedings of the Syndicate's meeting of July 3, 1963 including the revision of the draft minutes were all in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the University Statutes and therefore the Chancellor had no jurisdiction under Section 9(4) of the Act to annul the decision of the Syndicate or the proceedings of the meeting of July 3, 1963. 18. In the result, the High Court was right in holding the annulling order of the Chancellor to be without jurisdiction as it was passed on a wrong assumption of jurisdiction made on a misinterpretation of the Act and the University Statute. The High Court accordingly was justified on that ground as also on the ground that there was an appar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
