DR. RAI SHIVENDRA BAHADUR v. THE GOVER.NFNG BODY OF THE NALANDA COLLEGE
Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 144; 1961 INSC 348
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA , J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, J.R. MUDHOLKAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1961 INSC 348. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1961-12-15. DR. RAI SHIVENDRA BAHADUR v. THE GOVER.NFNG BODY OF THE NALANDA COLLEGE. Read the judgment...
Judgment text
1961 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS fl962] SUt>P. DR. RAI SHIVENDRA BAHADUR f}. THE GOVER. NfNG BODY OF THE . , NALANDA COLLEGE (B. P. ScNHA, C. J .. J. L. KAPUR, M. HmAYA. TULLAK, . J. C. SHAH and. J. R. MuDHOLK. \R, JJ. ; • Wrif of Ma11da011J. 1-. \'alarula College ajJlliaUd lo BiMr Uni•:eraity-Appoinlmenl of Principal-Legal r;ght, if anv toil4- regard to que. trion of appointmu•t-lf and when writ can w .. Unit' OICS a legal duty and the aggrieved p«rty had a legal right und"}' the statute to enforce its performanc¢ In the instant case it has not been sh~wn th~t there was any right in the appellant which can l>e enforced by a writ of mandomua. CrvIL APrEJ,LA. TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 403 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from th11 judgment and order dated July 19, 1961 of the Patnr. High Court in Mi8c. Judicia. I C\se No . . Wi of 1961. Bcwdeva PrlWJ! l and Naumt Lal,, for the Appellant. N. 0. Ohatterjee, D. P. Singh, R. K; Garg, 8 .. C. Agarwala and M. K.
Ramamurlhy, for the respondents. 2 S. C. R; SUPREME COURT REPORTS 145 1961. December 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. -This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment an oin- ted respondent No. 4 aa the Principal of the College. He was at that time a. Principal of another College in Bihar. On April 18, 1961 the appellant was asked to hand over charge to the new ·appointee by May 6, 1961. The petitioner thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challeng- ing the validity of the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Pr. incipal on the ground that the appellant's appointment was never terminated and if there was any resolution by which resolution of February 23, 1958 was rescinded or cancel· led, it was illegal as it was not included in the agenda. to be tra. nsa. cted and was void because of certain provisions in the University Statute fram- ed under the University of Bihar Act, 1951 (Act 27 of 1951 ), which ha.
cl the force of law; that the appointment of the New Principal WM invalid because the appointment had to be ma. de by the Governing Body of the College at its meeting and the power could not be delegated to the President or the Secretary; that the appointment was not approved by the University and the appellant was a better candidate than respondent No. 4 and he was entitled to promotion under Art. 4(1 )(b) of Statute XVI. These allegations were denied by the respon- dents. They pleaded that the resolution of Feb- ruary 23, 1958 was not valid because it did not consider the case of other teachers for promotion; \ 2 S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 147 that the appointment JJf the appellant was ne.. -er approved by the Syndicate as required by Art.
5 of Statute XVI; that the appellant having himself applied for the post of Principal after the resolu- tions were passed by the new Governing Body and having offered himself for interview before the Governing Body could not challenge tbe legality of the appointment as he could not approbate and reprobate. The High Court held that the appellant's appointment was not valid as the Syndicate had not given its approval and the petitioner had been allowed to join the post of Principal without such approval; that the decision of the Governing Body to advertise for the post of Principal was neither a case of punishment nor termination of service nor was ·it a demotion of the appellant, therefore it did not fall under Arts. 7, 8 and 9 of the Statutes. It also held that there was no protest from the appellant against the passing of the new resolution and as he submitted himself for selection, he could not now complain if some body else was selected.
It was held therefore that the appellant could not challenge the new appointment because (l) his own appointment was not .. -alid and (2) the appointment of respondent No. 4 was valid as it was approved by the University. A great deal of controversy was raised before us as to whether the Statutes framed by the Uni- versity under s. 20 of University of Bihar Act have or have not the force of law and whether a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution can issue against the Governing Body of the College i. e. , whether the appellant has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents. In order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the Statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has . a legal right under bhe Statutes to enforce 1961 Dr. R. i Shiv~ndra Bahcdur v: The Governint Bei_,~ • f the . N alan•c Collitt Ka1nJr J. 111111 Dr. Rai SAiwndra B""4dur •• r ~ Gowrning Body of U.. Naknd4 c. u. ,, K•pvr J.
148 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. its performance. It is, however, wholly unneoessary to go into or decide this question or to decide whether the Statutes impose on the Governing Body of the College a duty which can be enforced by a writ of mandamus because a. ssum· ing that the contention of the appellant is right that the College is a public body and it has to per- form a public duty in the appointment of a Princi- pal, it has not been shown that there is any right in the appellant which can be enforced by mandamua. According to the Statutes all appointments of teachers and staff have to be made by the Gover- ning Body and no JX rson can be appointed, remov- ed or demoted except in accordance with Rules but the appellant has not shown that he has any right entitling him to get an order for appointment or reinstatement.
Our attention has not been drawn to any Article in the Statutes by which the appellant has a right to be appointed or reinstated and if he has not thatright he cannot come to Court and ask for a writ to issue. It is therefore not nece11S&ry to go into any other question. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal di8missed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.