9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be constituted under Sub-section 2 was to consist of three persons, two of whom shall be elected by the Executive Council by single transferable vote from amongst persons not connected with the University or a College and the third shall be nominated by the Chancellor who was also empowered to appoint one of them as Chairman of the Committee. It is unnecessary to refer to other provisions of this section because these are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. It appears that under the above provisions a Committee to submit a panel of names for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for the University was duly constituted consisting of two persons elected by the executive Committee of the University, namely, G.K. Shinde, Retired Chief Justice and Justice T.P. Naik of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while the third member Shri C.B. Agarwal; Retired Judge of the Allahabad High Court was nominated by the Chancellor, Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia who also appointed G.K. Shinde as the Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman thereafter appears to have carried on a correspondence to fix a convenient place and rime for the meeting, which was ultimately fixed at Indore on the 4th of Apri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is predecessor under Section 13(2) of the Act held on 4th April 1970 at Indore at which only two members out of the three were present was legal, and whether the recommendations made by the committee at that meeting were legally valid. The Chancellor has been advised that the meeting held on the 4th April with only two members present and the decisions taken at the meeting were not legal. As a consequence, the orders issued by the University office dated 14th April would have to be rescinded. Before the Chancellor takes action in accordance with legal advice, he has desired that you should be asked if you have anything to state why such action should not be taken. I am desired to request you to send your reply as early as possible, and at the latest within a week. To this letter the appellant sent a reply on the 9th June 1970 after having earlier obtained an extension of time. In that reply he tried to make out a case that the recommendation of the Committee of two members out of three was perfectly valid and in support of it he cited various authorities and also a precedent of the same Governor who as the Chancellor of Indore University seems to have maintained the selection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;s impugned order that the appellant's appointment was held to be invalid because only two members of the Committee were present at the meeting. The High Court while holding that in the absence of any provision in the relevant enactment or the rules or regulations made thereunder, a majority of members of a selection committee like the one in the case before them would constitute the quorum, however, presumed that the question for consideration of the Chancellor was not merely one relating to the existence of the quorum requisite for a valid meeting but something different. On that assumption it examined the correspondence which ensued between the Chairman and Justice T.P. Naik to ascertain whether in fact a valid meeting had been called. According to the learned Judges, Justice Naik had written to the Chairman to say that he, the Chairman, was determined to hold the meeting presumably in his absence, and, therefore, the High Court thought that if the Chancellor, acting under Section 43A of the Act formed the opinion that the meeting held on that date was not legal, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie material for the formation of that opinion, reached by him after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : The contents of your telegram were conveyed to me on the phone today. It appears that 4th and 11th April both are suitable to you at Saugar and Bhopal. As I told you before, I am recovering from the attack of virus fever and am, therefore, not strong enough to undertake a car journey of 120 miles to Bhopal. There is no convenient plane to come to Bhopal either. If I come by Diane I shall have to stay over the night at the Circuit House and as I am still on diet, the Circuit House food will not suit me. As you can come up to Bhopal you can easily come to Indore either by Car or by Plane. The plane leaves Bhopal at about 9.00 a.m. and reaches Indore at about 9.30 a.m. After attending the meeting you can leave by plane which leaves for Bhopal at about 2.00 p.m.. As far as Lunch is concerned, if you let me know if you are vegetarian or non-vegetarian, I can arrange to give you lunch at my place. If it is impossible for you to come to Indore I would request you to send me your suggestions regarding suitable names for the post of Vice-Chancellor of the Saugar University by the 3rd of April. I would however, request you to make it convenient to attend the meeting at Indore. I have al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, to give up the idea of going by air, and as I cannot spare more than a day for the meeting, I had intimated to you that it would not be possible for me to come to Indore for the meeting scheduled for the 4th of April 1970 at 10.30 a.m. in Indore University. As for your kindly suggestion that I may by a letter suggest names to you for your consideration, I am of opinion that it would not only not be fair to the persons whose names I may suggest but also not be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Saugar University Act. With kind regards. This letter clearly negatives the assumption in the High Court's order that Shinde was trying to keep out Justice Naik from the meeting. On the other hand, Shinde in that letter had requested Justice Naik to suggest names of persons to be considered which prima facie negatives any intention on his part to keep Justice Naik away from the meeting. There is also nothing in the materials on the record to show that the correspondence cited above was pursued by the Chancellor either at the time when the show cause notice was given to the appellant or at the time of making the impugned Order. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
