Skip to content


Dr. A.K. Chatterji Vs. Dr. J.C. Sharma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 342 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1963All394
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Agra University Act, 1926 - Sections 2
AppellantDr. A.K. Chatterji
RespondentDr. J.C. Sharma and ors.
Advocates:Hargur Charan Srivastva, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....them, not to treat opposite parties no.5 to 10 as the members of faculty of homoeopathic medicine, agra university, agra - authority has not make decision in time - held, direction may be given to the authority of not issuing mandamus. (ii) institution - section 2(a) of agra university act, 1926 - institution is not a class - respondents no. 5 to 10 who teach students preparing for diploma course can be teachers of affiliated college - held, affiliated college is an institution affiliated to the university. (iii) interpretation - section 2(f) of agra. - - 5. before i go on to consider the merits of the submissions noticed above i should like to refer to two matters, first, that there is nothing in the petition to which my attention has been drawn on which it could be validly stated..........them not to treat opposite-parties nos. 5 to 10 as members of the faculty of homeopathic medicine, agra university, agra', and further directing the chancellor respondent no. 4 to make his decision as contemplated under section 35 of the -agra university act, 1926 'at the earliest' and till then not to let the meeting of the faculty be held -- a meeting which has been called for the 17th september, 1962. there is yet another prayer tagged on to this generic prayer for a writ of mandamus, namely, a prayer to direct respondents 2 to 4 to constitute the faculty of homeopathic medicine of the agra university after the appointments of principal and teachers have been made in accordance with the statute and till such appointments to direct the ad hoc committee to function in respect of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B. Mukerji, J.

1. This is a petition by Dr. A. K. Chatterji under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus to be issued against respondents 1 to 4 directing them not to treat opposite-parties Nos. 5 to 10 as members of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, Agra University, Agra', and further directing the Chancellor respondent No. 4 to make his decision as contemplated under Section 35 of the -Agra University Act, 1926 'at the earliest' and till then not to let the meeting of the Faculty be held -- a meeting which has been called for the 17th September, 1962. There is yet another prayer tagged on to this generic prayer for a writ of mandamus, namely, a prayer to direct respondents 2 to 4 to constitute the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine of the Agra University after the appointments of Principal and teachers have been made in accordance with the Statute and till such appointments to direct the Ad Hoc Committee to function in respect of academic matters falling within the competence of a Faculty. The petitioner has also prayed for this Court calling for the letter of appointment of respondent No. 1 and to quash that appointment.

2. A writ of qua warranto has also been, prayed for as against the first respondent directing him to show the authority under which he has been acting as Principal of the National Homeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, and as Dean of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine of the University of Agra. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that if the writs prayed for could not be granted then any other appropriate order or direction be issued in order to give adequate relief to the petitioner.

3. In order to see whether or not the petitioner was entitled to any relief it is necessary to state a few facts, even though very briefly. The petitioner, Dr. A. K. Chatterji, is a Homeopath possessing a Diploma from Calcutta and some other diplomas from England and Germany. The petitioner appears to have got in contact with the National Homeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, when he was appointed a member of an Ad Hoc Committee which was appointed by the Chancellor of the University of Agra to which the National Homeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, was affiliated, to draw up the necessary Statutes, Ordinances and Courses for the newly established Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine. The allegation of the petitioner was that respondents 5 to 10 could not function as members of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, nor could the first respondent function as a Dean and. therefore, the meeting which has been 'called by the Registrar of the Agra University of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine for September 17, 1962, should not be held.

4. The main ground, on which the competence of respondents 5 to 10 to function as members of the Faculty, assuming that they were appointed as! members of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, was challenged, was that some of the respondents could not be held to be teachers of 'an affiliated College' within the meaning of the Agra University Act. This contention was put forward in two aspects, first, that the Ist and IInd year classes off the National Homeopathic Medical College, Luck-now, only prepared students for a diploma which was not recognised by the University and the respondents who were only teaching those classes, could not be teachers of an affiliated College and occupied the rank of Demonstrator, and a Demonstrator, according to the petitioner's contention, could not be deemed to be a teacher.

5. Before I go on to consider the merits of the submissions noticed above I should like to refer to two matters, first, that there is nothing in the petition to which my attention has been drawn on which it could be validly stated that any right of the petitioner had been infringed or that he was likely to suffer any harm in any manner by this Court not entertaining this petition, and secondly, that the main question that has been raised by this petition is, in all its amplitude, before the Chancellor of the University for determination.

6. Under Section 35 of the Agra University Act when any question arises as to whether any person had been duly elected, appointed or co-opted or was entitled to be a member, the matter has to be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon would under that section be final. When I noticed the prayers asked for by the petition I also noticed the fact that a mandamus was prayed for as against the 4th respondent, the Chancellor of the Agra University, to direct him, to decide the matter which has been referred to him for decision under Section 35 of the Act.

7. There can be no doubt that this Court has the power to direct an authority which is under an obligation to make a decision, if such an authority refuses to decide the matter which it has to or makes inordinate or unjustified dealy in making the decision, to make its decision expeditiously, but I do not think this Court will exercise any power of issuing a mandamus to an authority which has not had a reasonable chance, in the matter of time to make a decision. It was admitted by learned, counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied to the chancellor for the determination of the question of the right, authority, etc., of the respondents to be members of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine only on the 12th of September last, i.e.. only two days ago. The tune between the making of the application to the Chancellor and the petitioner's moving this Court by this petition is so short that one cannot even be sure that the petitioner's application to the Chancellor has even reached the Chancellor, much less giving the Chancellor adequate opportunity to consider the matter and make his decision. That being the position, no writ as prayed for against the 4th respondent could be issued.

8. The other thing that I need notice is the fact that there is before me no sufficient material on which I could say that respondents 5 to 10 would be functioning as members of the Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, at the meeting which has been called by the Registrar of the University for the 17th September, 1962. Therefore, on this short ground also the petitioner's prayer for any orders, writs or directions as against the aforementioned respondents cannot, in my view, be appropriately granted.

9. I shall now turn to the contention which was raised by the petitioner in regard to the merits of the matter, although in view of what I have said above, this question now is only of academic interest. The fact that the National Homeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, teaches some students on its campus for a Diploma course would not split up the National Homeopathic Medical College into two institutions, namely, the one that teaches some for obtaining diplomas and the others for University degrees. The Institution remains a single institution, and indeed it has not even been contended that there are two clear-cut divisions of the Institution.

(10) The Institution, namely, the National Homeopathic Medical College, Lucknow, is affiliated to the Agra University. This fact has been conceded. Under Section 2(a) 'affiliated college' has been stated to mean 'an institution affiliated to the University'. 'Institution' does not mean classes. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondents 5 to 10 who teach students preparing for Diploma courses could not be teachers of an affiliated college has no substance.

11. Teacher' has been defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 as meaning a teacher, of the University or a teacher of an affiliated college and includes a Principal. Teachers of the University and Colleges are classified and these classified teachers have been put under different nomenclatures: some are called professors, some readers, some lecturers, some Demonstrators, and so on, but by having that nomenclature they did not lose their generic virtue or inherent quality of being teachers. Therefore, it could not, in my view, be contended that a person who was designated as a 'Demonstrator' could not be a teacher.

12. For the reasons given above I have seen no merits in this petition which I accordingly dismiss.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //