# [1972] 3 S.C.R. 796

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 796
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-03-14
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1972-3-s-c-r-796-5615
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Universit;y of Saugar Act, 1946, s. 13(2)-Comml•tee of three
to
select pan\ll of names for pose of Vice.Chancel/or-Only two members
of com1nittee present at meeting to selecl panel-In the absence of any
provision as to quorum the recommendations of majority of members
who are presenfl at the meeting is valid.
From a panel of names
recommended by a Selection
Cpmmittee
eonstituted under s. 13(2) of the University of Saugar Act,
1946 the
then
Chancellor of the University
appointed the
appellant "' ViceChancellor.
Under Ordinaiu:e No. 1 of 1970 the Governor of Madhya
Pradesh !>~came the Chancellor of the Cniversity. Exercising bis powers
of review under s. 43A of the Act the Governor, as Chancellor, after
notice to the appellant, set aside bis appointment as Vice..Cbancellor on
the ground that only two out of the three
members
of the Selection
Committee were present when bis name was included in the panel. The
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court.
The High Court called
fur too correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and
the member who was absent at the m~ting. On the lnsis. of a Jetter
written by the absent membelr to the Chairman, the High .Court came
to the conclusion that the member had been deliberately kept out of the
meeting and held that the Chancellor was justified in the opinion formed
by him under s. 43(A).
Allowing the appeal, this 8ourt,
HELD: (i) The High Court sustained the order of the ChaI)cellor
on grounds other than
those relied upon by him in that order,
[for
dismissing the writ petition in Ii mine]. The order made by the Chancellor
was based entirely on the legality of the meeting where only two of the
three mpmbers were present. There was nothing to show that the correspondence was persued l>y the Chancellor.
Further, the correspondence
did not support the assumption in the High Court's order that the Chairman. was trying to keep out any member from the meeting. [803 D-Gl
•
1
(ii)' If for one ·reason or the other one of the members of th! Committee, after due notice, could not attend; it did not make the meeting
of the others illegal.
In such circumstances where there was no rule or
regulation or any other provision for fixing quorum in the presence of
the majority of the member_s would constitute a valid meeting and matters
considered thereat could not be held to be invalid. [80l HJ
C1VIL Al'!'ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 243 of
'1971.
Appeal biy special leave from the judg!llent and order dated
September 3, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 256 of 1970.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JSHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 797
A
C. K. baphtary, L. M. Singhvi, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and
B
K: R. Nagaraja, for the appellant.
B. Sen and/. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
S. S. Khandujd, S. K. Dhingra and Promod Swaroop for res~
pondent No. 2.

## Text

796
ISHWAR CHANDRA
v .
.SATYANARAIN SlNHA & ORS.
March 14, 1972
[K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.)
Universit;y of Saugar Act, 1946, s. 13(2)-Comml•tee of three
to
select pan\ll of names for pose of Vice.Chancel/or-Only two members
of com1nittee present at meeting to selecl panel-In the absence of any
provision as to quorum the recommendations of majority of members
who are presenfl at the meeting is valid.
From a panel of names
recommended by a Selection
Cpmmittee
eonstituted under s. 13(2) of the University of Saugar Act,
1946 the
then
Chancellor of the University
appointed the
appellant "' ViceChancellor.
Under Ordinaiu:e No. 1 of 1970 the Governor of Madhya
Pradesh !>~came the Chancellor of the Cniversity. Exercising bis powers
of review under s. 43A of the Act the Governor, as Chancellor, after
notice to the appellant, set aside bis appointment as Vice..Cbancellor on
the ground that only two out of the three
members
of the Selection
Committee were present when bis name was included in the panel. The
appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court.
The High Court called
fur too correspondence between the Chairman of the Committee and
the member who was absent at the m~ting. On the lnsis. of a Jetter
written by the absent membelr to the Chairman, the High .Court came
to the conclusion that the member had been deliberately kept out of the
meeting and held that the Chancellor was justified in the opinion formed
by him under s. 43(A).
Allowing the appeal, this 8ourt,
HELD: (i) The High Court sustained the order of the ChaI)cellor
on grounds other than
those relied upon by him in that order,
[for
dismissing the writ petition in Ii mine]. The order made by the Chancellor
was based entirely on the legality of the meeting where only two of the
three mpmbers were present. There was nothing to show that the correspondence was persued l>y the Chancellor.
Further, the correspondence
did not support the assumption in the High Court's order that the Chairman. was trying to keep out any member from the meeting. [803 D-Gl
•
1
(ii)' If for one ·reason or the other one of the members of th! Committee, after due notice, could not attend; it did not make the meeting
of the others illegal.
In such circumstances where there was no rule or
regulation or any other provision for fixing quorum in the presence of
the majority of the member_s would constitute a valid meeting and matters
considered thereat could not be held to be invalid. [80l HJ
C1VIL Al'!'ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 243 of
'1971.
Appeal biy special leave from the judg!llent and order dated
September 3, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 256 of 1970.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JSHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 797
A
C. K. baphtary, L. M. Singhvi, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and
B
K: R. Nagaraja, for the appellant.
B. Sen and/. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
S. S. Khandujd, S. K. Dhingra and Promod Swaroop for res~
pondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, 1.
This is an appeal by special leave
c
against the summary dismissal Of a Writ Petition filed by the
appel!i;nt against the order cf the Chancellor of the Saugar University dated the 15th June 1970 by which his appointment ~s
Vice-Chancellor of that University was cancelled.
It may at the outset be mentioned that the appointment of th~
Vice-Chancellor of the Saugar University is made by the Chancellor of that University under section 13 of the University of
0
Saugar Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") from "
panel of net less than three persons recommended by the Committee constituted under sub-section (2) of that section.
The
Committee to be constituted under sub-section (2) was to co.nsis1
of three persons, two of whom shall ])~ elected by the Executive
Council by single transferable vote from amongst pe•·sons n~t
connected with the University or a College and the third shall b~
I.
nominated by the Chancellor who was also empowered to appoint
one of them as Chairman of the Committee.
It is unnecessa · ·
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
F
collstituted 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 Maciliya·Prade>h High Court
while the third member Shri C. B. AgarWaIFRetired Judge of the
Allahabad Hi~h Court was nominated by the Chancellor, Rajmata
Vijaya Raje Scindia who also appointed G. K. Shinde as the.
G
Chairman of the Committee.
The Chairman thereafter appears
to have carried on a correspondence to fix a convenient place and
time for the meeting, which was ultimately fixed at Indore on the
4th of Aoril 1970.
Justice Naik was, however, unable to attend
the meeting and in his absence the other two ·pe•sons, Shri Shinde
and Shri. A~awal met a~ a Committee and submitted a panel of
names from which the Chancellor apooinied the •appe1lant on 7th
H
April 1970 as a Vice Chancellor with effect friim. the 22nd June
1970. for a -period .·of five years. · The ari,,eilimt ~t 1.he. -tim~ c.f. t!:~
appointment, it seems, was acting as Vice-Chancellor.
5-LI06!SupcI/72
798
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R.
On the 9th of April 1970, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh,
A
Shri K. C .. Reddy · .promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 1970 . by
section 2 of which s_ub-section ( 1) of section 11 was substituted
by a new sub-sectio11 ( 1) whereunder the Governor of Madhya
Pradesh was made an ex officio Chncellor of that University.
By section 3, it was provided that as from the date of the coming
into force of that Ordinance, the Chancellor in office immediately n
before the date aforeiaid shall cease to hold office of the Chancellor and the Governor of Madhya Pradesh shall assume the said
office. · By virtue of this Ordinance. Rajma!a Vijaya Raje Scindia
ceased to be the Chancellor.
On the 23rd April 1970, the Governor again passed another Ordinance by section 2 of which he
substituted section 43 of the Act by a new section 43. By §ection c
3 a new section 43A was also added.
Section 4 made the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 to ope,ate retrospecitvely as from
the commencement of the original Act.
The amended sections
43 and 43A are as foJJows :-
"43. If any question arises whether any person h"'
been duly appointed, elected, nominated or coopted as,
or is entitled to be, a memlt~r of any authority or other
body of the University or any officer of the University,
ihe matter shall be referred to the
Chancellor wl]ose
decision thereon shall be final.
43A. The Chancellor may, either on his own motion
or on the application of any party interested, review
any order passed by himself or his predecessor in office
if he is of the opinion that it is not in accordance with
the provisions of this Act, the statutei, the Ordinance o;·
the Regulations or is otherwise improper and pass such
orders in reference thereto as he may think fit."
After the above Ordinances were promulgated, the Sec·etary to
the Governor of Madhya Pradesh wrote on the 20th May 1970
to the appellant as follows :-
"The question has come up before the. Chancellor
whether the meeting of the committee constituted by
his 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 tb.e meeting held on the 4th April with only two
meQ!bers present and the decisions taken at the meeting
were not legal.
As a consequence, the orders issued by
the University oftice dated 14th April would have to be
rescinded.
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
ISllWAR CHANDRA v .. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy; J.) 79!
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
s.hould not be taken.
I am desired to request you to
send your reply as early as possiple, and at the latest
within a week".
To this letter the appellant sent a reply on the 9th June 1970
after having earlier obtai~~d 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 made by his predecessor
in similar circumstances.
The Governor did not, however, accept
the appellant's plea but passed the following impugned orders oh
the 15th June 1970 :-
"WHEREAS, on applications made in that behalf,
the Chancellor is of the opinion that order dated the
7th April 1970, passed
by his predecessor in office
appointing Shri Tshwar Chandra as Vice-Chancellor of
the University of Saugar with effect from the 22nd June
1970, for a period of five years is not in acco· dance
with provisions of sedan 13 of the
University
of
Saugar Act, 1946 (XVI of 1946) (hereinafter referred
to as the said Act);
NOW, THEREFORE,
in exercise of the powers
conferred by section 43A of the said Act, I, the Chancellor of the University of Saugar, hefeby-
( i) cancel the aforementioned order dat~d the 7th
April 1970 appointi.ng Shri Ishwar Chandra as ViceChancellor; and
(ii) direct that the committee be constituted for
submission of panel in accordance with the provi;ions
of section 13 of the said Act".
G
On the !st July 1970, a Writ Petition was filed in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh and it appears that on the 3rd July
1970 the Court directed the appellant to produce the correspondence retween the Chairman and the members of the Selection
Committee in respect of the meeting to be held to recommend the
H
~.ames for the appointment of a Vice-Clia111cellor.
The appellant,
1t seems, produced the correspondence with an affidavit on the
25th July 1970 stating that he had obtained the correspondence
from the Chairman of the Committee. the former Chief Justice
Shinde.
On the 3rd of September 1970, rule nisi was refused.
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
On the 19th September 1970 the application for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court was also rejected.
In the latcer order two
facts had been stated which have been challenged as incorrect.
The first one was that the Chairman had at first fixed Bhopal as
the venue of the meeting and secQndly that as thl' working ViceChancellor of the University, the petitioner had accfl6s to all the
documents relating to the meeting and his detailed reply given to
the Chancellor was grounded 01n some of them.
Though there
·is some justification in these contentions what has to be seen is
whether the order rejecting the Writ Petition was justified, and if
so, now that the order of the Chancellor has been impugneJ, L
that order valid.
It is clear from the Governor's impugned orde:·
that the appellant's appointment was held to be invalid becmso
only two .members of the Committee we:e present at the meet>ng.
The High Cour~ 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 ihe
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 meebng but something diffecent.,
On that a•sumption it examined the correspondence which ensued between the
Chairman and Justice T. P. Naik to asce··ta1n whether in fact a
valid meeting had been called.
Ai;:cordjng to the leamed Judges,
Justice Naik had written to the Clnh:ian to say that he, the
Chairman, was determined to hoict the m ~etiiJg presumably in his
absence, and, therefore, the High Couct thought' that if the Chan·
cellar, acting under section 43A of lhe Act formed the opinton
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 giving to the petitioner an opportunity to state why the action propose4 should not be taken.
The assumption in this order rejecting the Writ Petition is not
warranted, firstly, because the correspondence does not show that
there was any deliberate attempt made by the Chairman to ex-
' elude one of the members in this ca<e, Justice T. P. Naik, and
seco~dly, that the Chancellor had, because of this exclusion, declared the meeting held on the 4th April 1970 as not beip.g valid 0
We have already pointed out that the Chancellor was merely
concerned with the legality of the recommendation made by two
out of three members and n()t th'at any attempi was made by the
Chairman to exclude one of the members.
Neither the show.
cause notice, nor the reply given blV the appellant to that notice,
nor even the O•der of the· Chancellor indiCates any such ground
as that assμmed lw the Hi~h Cn,;,.,: to 'fmm th?. basi• of the Chl!II'
cellor's. order.
'The corresp00dence shows thai the ChairmaT
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
ISHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohah Reddy, 1.) 801
had written a letter on the 12th February 1970 in which he
inquired of Justice Naik whether the 7th' and 8th March 1970
would suit him to meet at Bhopal to consider the names for the
panel.
Later on the 20th February 1970, he wrote another letter
saying that the other member was abroad, and therefore, the meeting whiclt was proposed to be held on the 7th or 8th cannot be
held and that he would let him know when a new date was fixed.
In .fact, Justice Naik replied o.n the 27th February 1970 acknowledging these letters and asking him to let him know the date of
the meeting as and when fixed.
On the 8th March 1970 Mr.
Shinde again wrote to Justice Naik fixing the meeting on the 12th
March 1970 at 10.30 a.m. at Indore and also suggested that if
nece;sary they may meet the next day, the 22nd March 1970. On
the ! 6th March 1970 Shinde sent a telegram to Justice Naik asking him to wire if 4th April was suitJble at Indore. On the 18th
March 1970, he again sent a telegram to him saying : )'Doctors
Forbid travel stop wire whether 4th & 11th April suitable for
Indore".
Justice Naik sent two tel~grams, one on the 21st March
1970 saying that 4th is suitable at Saugar or Bhopal and another
on the 27th March 1970 stating that both 4th and 11th suitable
at Saugar or Bhopal.
He also wrote two letters on the 26'h and
27th to Shinde.
Shinde had earlier written on ,the 24th March
1970 to Justice Naik in which he said as follows:-
'
"The contents of your te!egram were conveyed to, me
on the phQne today. It appears that 4th and 11th
April both a"e suitable to you at Saugar and ahopal. As
I told you before, I am recovering from th~ attack of
virus fever and am, therefore. not strong enou2h to
undertake a car journey of 120 miles to Bhopal. The·e
is no convenient plane to come to Bhopal either.
Lf I
come by nlane I shall have to stay ove• 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 ei•her bv Car or
'by Plane.
The plane leaves Bhopal at about 9.00 a.m.
and reach~s Indore at about 9.30 a.m.
After attending
the !peeting you can leave by plane which leaves for
Bhooal at about 2.00 p.m.
As far as Lunch is concerned, if vou let me \mow if you are ve~etarian or
.non-vegeta'1an, .I can arran~e to give you lunch at mv
place.
If it h impossible for you to come. to Indore I
would reaue;t you to send me your su~·e~tfons l"\~ard
in~ suitable names for the pJst of Vice-Chancellor of
the s~ugar University by the 3rd of Aoril.
I would.
however, request you to m-ake it convenient to atte!\d
the meetin~ at Indore.
I have al-eady sent you a tel"-
gram· to the effect that •he meeting iS fixed on the 4th
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1972] 3 S.C.R.
of April at Indore in the Meeting Room of the University of Indore at 10.30 a.m."
Hoping to hear from you b(y the return of post and
with kind regards".
A
Before this letter reached to the tclegrnm received by him, Justice
D
Naik wrote a letter to Shinde as follows :-
"I am in receipt of your telegram intimating to me
that you have fixed the meeting to consider panel of
names for Saugar .University on the 4th of April 1970,
at 10.30 a.m. at Indore in the Indore University.
I regret my inability to be present at Indore on the
date and time specified, though I may be 3ble to attend
the meeting if the venue is changed to Bhopal.
It is very surprising that you should have fixed the
meeting on the 4th of April at Indore, even though I
had informed you by a telegram on the 17th ci March
1970, that it would not be possible for me to attend it
there on that date.
Anyway, knowing fuli weli that it would not be possible for me to be present at Indore at 10.30 a.m. on
April 4, 1970, you seem determined to hold the meeting
there presumably in my absence.
I can only regret
your decision.
If you are still interested in having my pres¢nce
for the meeting, you may fix it either on the 4th or the
11th April 1970 at Saugar or Bhopal, though Bhapal
would be more convenient to me personally.
I hope you have recovered from the effects of your
illness biY now".
This letter shows that though Justice Naik knew about the illness of
Shinde, he somehow seems to have assumed, and ii we may say so,
without justification that Shinde was determined to hold it there
presumably in his absence.
On the 27th Ma-ch 1970, the next
day, he however, after the receipt of the letter cf the 24th instant
from Shinde did not take up the attitude that the meeting was being
held presumably to keep him away from attending it.
Justfoe
Naik, however, tried to explain his difficulty.
He said :-
"I am in receipt of your letter dated 24th March
1970.
I am sorry to note that you have not yet recovere<! from the effects of your illness.
I do hope you
shall soon get well.
c
D
E
Ii
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
11
ISHWAR CHANDRA v. s. SINHA (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 8 Ol
As for my coming to Indore, I had c0nsidered the
possibility of my going there by air from Bhopal. but I
am informed that the journey is very bumpy these days
due to weather conditions and I do get terribly sick if the
journey is bumpy.
I had, ther~ore, 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 Lndore 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 lfy: a letter
suggest names to you for your consideration, I am of
opinion that it would not only not be fair to the perscms
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'i
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 cl persons to be considered which
prima facie negatives any iintention 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 persned
by the Chancellor either at the time when the show cause notice
was given to the appellant or at the time·of making the impugiied
Order. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the Governor was
inJluenced by the above correspondence.
It is rather unfortunate
that the appellant's Writ Petition was dismissed in /imilfe and without a proper appreciation of all the relevant, facts.
There is little
doubt that the impugned Order made by the Chancellor was b"!Sed
entirely on the legality of the meeting where only two out of three
members were present when the ~ame of the appel'ant was recommended.
The High Court delved into the correspondence to sustain the order of the Chancellor on grounds oth~r than those relied
upon by him in that order for di,missiITTg the Writ Petition
in limine, which in our view, was not justified. It is also not denied
that the meeting held bly two of the three members on the 4th April
1970 was Ie-ral because sufficient notice was given to all the three
membe's.
If for ooe reason or the other one of them could not
attend, that does not make the meeting of others illegal.
In such
circumstances, where there is no rule or regu1ation or any other
provision for fixing the quorum, the presence ·of the majority of the
members would con.titute it a va!in meeting and matters considered
there at cannot be held to be invalid.
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R..
This proposltion is well recognised and is also so stated in
A
Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Editi011 (Vol. IX, page 48,
para 95). It is, therefore, unnecessary to refer to any decisions
on the subject.
In the view we have taken, the appeal is allowed
with costs against respondent 3, the Order of the Chancellor revoking the appointment of the appellant is set aside and the appe'la.nt
is declared to have been validly appointed as Vice-Chancellor o'.
ll
the Saugar University as from the 22nd June 1970.
G.C.
Appeal allowed.