Writ Petition No. 4001/2014. Case: Gurudas Mangruji Kamdi Vs The Hon'ble Chancellor of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 4001/2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate and For Respondents: Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate, B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader, A.A. Naik, P.B. Patil, Anand Parchure, Advocates and M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel/Amicus Curiae |
| Judges | B.R. Gavai and V.M. Deshpande, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 356; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 34; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 498A; Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 - Section 60; Maharashtra Preventive Detention Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 7; Maharashtra Universities Act 1994 - Sections 11, 13, 15(5), 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 39, 40(2), 50, 60 |
| Judgement Date | October 08, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
B.R. Gavai, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. An important question as to the scope of, powers of the Hon'ble Chancellor to appoint a person to act as a Vice Chancellor as an interim measure, as provided in sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 arises for consideration in the present writ petition.
3. The respondent no. 3-Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University is duly established in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act" for the sake of brevity). Dr. V.S. Sapkar was working as a Vice Chancellor, of respondent no. 3, who tendered his resignation on 30.03.2014. As such the Hon'ble Chancellor vide an order dated 30.03.2014 appointed the respondent no. 4-Shri Anup Kumar, who is working as the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, to act as a Vice Chancellor of the respondent no. 3-University in addition to his own duties as Divisional Commissioner, with immediate effect till further orders.
4. The petitioner who is a Member of the Senate of the respondent no. 3-University from the Registered Graduates Constituency, has approached this Court questioning the appointment of the respondent no. 4 made by the Hon'ble Chancellor to act as a Vice Chancellor of the respondent no. 3-University.
5. We have heard Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, learned senior counsel for the Hon'ble Chancellor and the intervenor in person. Since an important question of law was involved, we had requested Mr. M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel to assist us as an Amicus Curiae which request was graciously accepted by Mr. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel. We had also the benefit of his valuable assistance.
6. It is the basic contention of the petitioner that in exercise of the powers under clause (d) of sub-section 3A, the State Government has prescribed essential as well as desirable qualification, vide notification dated 25.05.2009. It is contended that the respondent no. 4 does not possess the essential qualification as provided under the said notification. It is further the submission of the petitioner that in view of sub-section 8 of Section 12, the Vice Chancellor is required to be a whole-time salaried officer of the University. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 has been appointed to act as a Vice Chancellor in addition to his own duties as a Divisional Commissioner and as such the appointment is in violation of the provisions of subsection 8 of Section 12 of the said Act.
7. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that word "suitable" has been used at various places in sub-sections of Section 12 of the Act and, therefore, the word "suitable" will have to be given a meaning that a person who is eligible and suitable. The reliance in this respect is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 356. The learned counsel further submits that all subsections of a section are required to be read together and if all the sub-sections of Section 12 of the said Act are read together, the only conclusion that would be arrived at is that a person who can be appointed even as a acting Vice Chancellor must also possess the necessary qualifications as is prescribed under clause (d) of sub-section 3A of Section 12 of the Act. The reliance in this respect is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya vs. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1543.
8. As against this, Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Hon'ble Chancellor submits that the power to appoint the regular Vice Chancellor is distinct than the power of the Hon'ble Chancellor to appoint a person as acting Vice Chancellor, under sub-section 7 of Section 12 of the said Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the situations and considerations for exercise of the powers to appoint the regular Vice Chancellor and the acting Vice Chancellor are totally different. It is submitted that the power to appoint a regular Vice Chancellor for a period of 5 years is to be exercised by following the procedure prescribed under sub-sections 1 to 4 of Section 12 of the said Act. However, the power to appoint a person as acting Vice Chancellor arises because of the exigencies mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section 7 of Section 12. It is submitted that the said power is to be exercised only as an interim measure.
9. Mr. Manohar submits that if the contention of the petitioner that only a person who possesses the necessary educational qualifications and experience is only to be appointed as an acting Vice Chancellor is to be accepted, the same would make clause (a) of sub-section 7 of Section 12 of the said Act redundant. The learned Senior Counsel submits that if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted then in an eventuality the Committee appointed under sub-section 1 of Section 12 is unable to recommend any name finding that none of the them possesses necessary experience and qualification, then it will be impossible for the Hon'ble Chancellor to exercise the powers under sub-section 7, inasmuch as no person possessing the necessary qualification and experience would be available. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that similarly if a vacancy arises in the office of the Vice Chancellor temporarily because of leave, illness or other causes, normally a Pro-Vice Chancellor is appointed to act as an acting Vice Chancellor. However, the eligibility criteria for appointment of the Vice Chancellor and the Pro-Vice Chancellor are totally different. It is, therefore, submitted that if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then the Hon'ble Chancellor would also not be in a position to appoint a Pro-Vice Chancellor as an acting Vice Chancellor.
10. Mr. Manohar further submits that the power to be exercised under sub-section 7 of Section 12 of the said Act, is a power to be exercised in an emergency. It is submitted that there may be numerous situation like floods, fire riots, strikes, arson, internal politics causing a log-jam in administration and proper functioning of the University, thereby causing loss of faith and credibility of the University and in such a situation the incumbent of the office of the Vice Chancellor may resign, thereby causing vacancy in the said office. It is submitted that in such an emergency, if a Vice Chancellor is required to find a person with the educational eligibility and the requisite experience, it may not be possible for such a person to deal with an emergent situation and, therefore, the power has to be construed as a power which enables the Hon'ble Chancellor to appoint a person who is suitable to deal with such exigencies.
11. Mr. Manohar further submits that upon a harmonious construction of various provisions of the said Act, it would be clear that the Legislature never intended that the educational qualifications etc. prescribed for regular appointment of a Vice Chancellor would ipso facto apply to the appointment of the acting Vice Chancellor. The learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 13 deals with appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellor. It is submitted that sub-section 5 of the said Section provides that when the office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor falls vacant or when the Pro-Vice Chancellor is, by reason of illness or absence of any other cause, unable to perform the duties of his office, the Hon'ble Chancellor upon the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor may appoint a suitable person qualified to be appointed as Pro-Vice Chancellor to officiate as Pro-Vice chancellor, till the Pro-Vice Chancellor resumes office. It is submitted that Section 17 of the said Act deals with the appointment of Registrar. It is provided that when the post of the Registrar has remained vacant for a period of six months, the State Government shall appoint on deputation, a suitable person possessing the qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission, to perform the duties of the Registrar for a period of not more than one year at a time and not more than three years in the aggregate. It is submitted that, however, in sub-section 4 of the said section it is provided that, when the Registrar is unable to perform his duties for a period not exceeding six months, the Vice Chancellor shall appoint a suitable person to officiate as Registrar until the Registrar resumes duties. It is further submitted that section 18 deals with the appointment of Controller of Examinations. Proviso to subsection 1 (a) provides that if the post has remained vacant for a period of six months, the State Government shall appoint, on deputation, a suitable person having prescribed qualifications to perform the duties of the Controller. It is further submitted that sub-section 1 of Section 19 deals with the appointment of Librarian. If the post of Librarian falls vacant, such duties are to be performed, for the time being by such person as the Vice Chancellor may appoint for the purpose. It is further submitted that Section 50 of the Act deals with Casual Vacancy in the office of a Member of the Standing Committee. It provides that such vacancy shall be filled in by nomination of a person by the Standing Committee. Sub-section (1) of Section 50 provides that the person so nominated shall be a person who is otherwise eligible to be elected on the same category. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that wherever the Legislature intended that the person to officiate on a post by way of interim measure must possess the necessary eligibility or qualifications, the Legislature has specifically provided and wherever it did not find it necessary, it did not provide so. It is submitted that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial