Skip to content


R.P. Srivastava Vs. Chancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 17125 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985All287
ActsUttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 - Sections 49, 51 and 68; Bundelkhand University Ordinances - Ordinances 2, 2(1) and 3
AppellantR.P. Srivastava
RespondentChancellor, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and anr.
Appellant AdvocatePradeep Chandra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
service - appointment - sections 68, 49 and 51 of u.p. state universities act, 1973, statute 7.02(1)(ii) and (iv) of bundelkhand university statutes and ordinances 2(1)(i) and 3 of chapter xiii of bundelkhand university ordinances - lecturer in economics nominated appointed as member in faculty of arts - appointment as member and convener of board of studies respective faculty - lecturer nominated as member of faculty of arts under statute 7.02(1)(ii) does not represent subject of economics in faculty of arts - cancellation of appointment - held, invalid. - - i am, therefore, satisfied that the chancellor was in error in allowing the representation of dr......to the bundelkhand university. interpreting clause 2(1) which provides for constitution of boardof studies, the chancellor has taken the view that only such person who is a member of the faculty and who represents the subject in the faculty concerned can be a member of the board of studies and consequently become its convener under clause 3 thereof. the ordinance does not specify as to how it should be ascertained as to who represents a particular subject on the faculty under statute 7.02(i)(ii) being the seniormost teacher in economics while sri r. p. srivastava came in as being amongst five seniormost teachers in the faculty. he is a teacher of economics. the chancellor's view is that he does not represent the subject on the faculty.8. it is necessary to mention here' that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B.N. Sapru, J.

1. This writ petition is being decided after notice to the parties and with their consent at the admission stage.

2. Sri R. P. Srivastava, the petitioner, is a Lecturer in Economics Department of Jawahar Lal Nehru College, Banda. He has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the Chancellor of Bundelkhand University dt. 29-11-84 allowing the representation filed by Dr. Section P. Mathur, respondent 2, under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. Under the impugned order the appointment of Sri R. P. Srivastava as a member and convener of the Board of Studies in Economics was quashed and it was further directed that Dr. S. P. Mathur shall be theconvener of the Board of Studies in Economics. One Dr. C. P. Saxena was the member and convener of the Board of Studies in Economics of the University. On the expiry of his term the post fell vacant. The University under its order dt. 22-9-83 appointed Sri R. P. Srivastava, Lecturer in Economics as the convener of the Board of Studies. Dr. S. P. Mathur, respondent No. 2, who is a Lecturer in Economics in Bundelkhand College, Jhansi, another affiliated college of Bundelkhand University, thought that he should be appointed the convener instead of Sri R. P. Srivastava. He made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor against the appointment of Sri R. P. Srivastava as convener of the Board of Studies. This representation was rejected.

3. Upon the rejection of his representation Dr. S. P. Mathur made a representaion to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. The prayer made in the representation to the Chancellor was for the following reliefs :

(i) to revise the constitution of the Board of Studies in Economics as envisaged in the Ordinance given in para 2. 3 above;

(ii) to notify the petitioner as Convener of Board of Studies in Economics w.e.f. 21-8-1983;

(iii) to delete the name of Sri R. P. Srivastava from the list of members of the Board of Studies in Economics because he does not represent the subject of Economics on the Board of the Faculty of Arts;

4. Notice of this representation was given to Sri R. P. Srivastava who submitted a reply to the Chancellor. The Chancellor also obtained comments from the University and look into consideration a rejoinder submitted by Dr. S. P. Mathur.

5. The Chancellor in his order has observed that the report of the University showed that Dr. S. P. Mathur was nominated as a member of the Faculty under Sub-clause (ii) of Statute 7.02(1) while Sri. R. P. Srivastava was nominated in the said Faculty of Arts under Sub-clause (iv) of the aforesaid Statute 7.02(1). The Chancellor held that Shri R. P. Srivastava who was on the Board of Faculty under Sub-clause (iv) of Statute 7.02(1) did not represent the subject of Economics in the Faculty of Arts, while Dr. S. P. Mathur represented the subject in the Faculty havingbeen appointed under Sub-clause (ii) of Statute 7.02(1). The Chancellor went on to hold :

'Therefore, out of the petitioner and the opposite party Sri R. P. Srivastava, only Dr. Mathur can become a member of the Board of Studies under item No. 1 of Ordinance 2(1) as a teacher representing the subject of Economics in the Board of Faculty and being seniormost in the said category is entitled to be appointed as Convener of the Board of Studies in Economics. The opposite party Sri R. P. Srivastava can, therefore, neither be a member of the Board of Studies in Economics nor can be the Convener of the same.'

There is no factual dispute between the parties. The correctness of the order of the Chancellor is not questioned on the ground of any mistake of fact. Under Statute 7.01 the University has seven Faculties including the Faculty of Articles Statute 7.02(1) in so far as is relevant is reproduced below : --

'7.02(1) The Board of each Faculty other than the Faculties of Law, Commerce, Education and Medicine shall be constituted as follows :

(i) The Dean of the Faculty, who shall be the Chairman.

(ii) One Seniormost teacher who shall either be a principal or seniormost teacher of a Post Graduate Department for each of the subjects comprised in the Faculty and recognised up to post graduate standard.

(iii) One seniormost teacher who shall be Principal or seniormost teacher of a Department for each of the subjects comprised in the Faculty and recognised up to first degree standard only.

(iv) Five seniormost teachers in the Faculty other than Principals and teachers mentioned in Clauses (ii) and (iii) above, provided that not two shall profess the same subject and belong to the same college, where there is more than one college recognised for the teaching of the subject. The teachers so passed over shall not lose their turn in rotation next time.

(v)...............'

Clause (2) of the aforesaid Statute 7.02 providesthat the teachers under items (ii), (iii) and (iv)of Clause (1) shall be chosen by rotation in orderof seniority, Dr. S. P. Mathur came on theBoard of Faculty of Arts under Statute 7.02(1)(ii) while Sri R. P. Srivastava came on theBoard of Faculty of Arts under Statute7.02(l)(iv).

6. Then we come to the constitution of Board of Studies which is provided under Chapter XIII of the Ordinances of the University. Clauses 2 and 3 thereof are relevant. Clause 2 provides as follows :--.

'2.(1) A Board of Studies shall be constituted as follows : --

(i) The member or members representing the subject of the Faculty concerned.

(ii) Two persons having expert knowledge of the subject selected by the Faculty concerned who are residents within the State of Uttar Pradesh or Delhi; and

(iii) Two teachers of the subject in affiliated college; other than persons under (i) above, by rotation in order of seniority'.

Clause 3 of Chapter XIII provides that the Seniormost of the members mentioned in item (i) under Sub-clause (1) of Clause 2 shall be the Convener of the Board.

7. Both Sri R. P. Srivastava and Dr. S. P. Mathur are lecturers in Economics in Colleges affiliated to the Bundelkhand University. Interpreting Clause 2(1) which provides for constitution of Boardof Studies, the Chancellor has taken the view that only such person who is a member of the Faculty and who represents the subject in the Faculty concerned can be a member of the Board of Studies and consequently become its Convener under Clause 3 thereof. The Ordinance does not specify as to how it should be ascertained as to who represents a particular subject on the Faculty under Statute 7.02(i)(ii) being the seniormost teacher in Economics while Sri R. P. Srivastava came in as being amongst five seniormost teachers in the Faculty. He is a teacher of Economics. The Chancellor's view is that he does not represent the subject on the Faculty.

8. It is necessary to mention here' that Statute 7.02(1)(iv) is very unhappily worded. The word 'not' in Sub-clause (iv) is misplaced. The Statute 7.02(1)(iv) runs :

'..........provided that not two shall profess thesame subject and belong to the same college....'

The word 'not' before the word 'two' is misplaced. It should be between the words 'shall' and 'profess'. The proper construction of this part of the Statute is : --

'....provided that two shall not profess the same subject and belong to the same college...'

This construction of the Statute 7.02(1)(iv) is .in consonance with its Hindi version published in the Official Gazette which runs as follows :

(Matter in Vernacular omitted -- Ed.)

9. I will read Statute 7.02(1)(iv) in the manner indicated above. While construing Chapter XIII of the Ordinance which deals with the Board of Studies, Clause 2(1)(i) will have to be interpreted by reference to Statute 7.02 as there is no indication in Clause 2 as to who will be the member or members representing the subject on the Faculty concerned. Under Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Statute 7.02(1) a teacher in a subject comprised in the Faculty will be a member of the Faculty in the manner prescribed. Under Clause (iv) five senior most teachers in the Faculty other than Principals and teachers mentioned in Clause (ii) and (iii) shall be members of the Faculty. There is, however, a restriction that out of these five Senior most teachers there will be only one teacher in a particular subject, the intention obviously being that at least five subjects should be represented on the Faculty by the five senior most teachers.

10. Reading Clause 2(1) of Chapter XIII of XIII, is no a son to hold that only those teachers who are on the Faculty under Statute 7.02 (l)(ii)(iii) represent a particular subject on the Faculty. A teacher in a subject in the Faculty who becomes a member of the Faculty under Sub-clause (iv) thereof equally represents the subject on the Faculty and can do so on the Board of Studies. There is no reason to hold that a teacher who comes on the Faculty under Clause (iv) of Statute 7.02(1) does not represent the subject.

11. Under Clause 2 of Chapter XIII only persons who are competent to be on the Board of Studies in each subject are teachers of that subject. Clause 3 restricts the convenership to the senior most of the member or members (sic) representing the subject on the Faculty concerned. It does not restrict convenership to persons. mentioned in Statute 7.02(i)(ii) and (iii). Any teacher on the Faculty if he teaches a particular subject can be on the Board of Studies. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Chancellor was in error in allowing the representation of Dr. S. P. Mathur.

12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Chancellor dated 29th Nov. 1984 (Annexure4 to the writ petition) is quashed. Sri R. P. Srivastava will continue as a member and also convener of the Board of Studies in the subjectconcerned, The petitioner is entitled to his costs from Dr. S. P. Mathur, respondentNo. 2.


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