D.S. REDDY v. CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 214; 1966 INSC 259
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K. SUBBA RAO , J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI, C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM
Judgment date:
Case summary
1966 INSC 259. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1966-12-09. D.S. REDDY v. CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY & ORS. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
D. S. REDDY v. CHANCELLOR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY & ORS. December 9, 1966 [K. SUBBA RAO, C. J. , J. C. SHAH, S. M. SJKRI, V. RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAIDJALINGAM, JJ. ] Constitution of India, Article 14-Appellant appoimed Vice·Chan- ce//or under s. 12(1) of Osmania University Act, 1959 for 5 years- A-nding Act II of 1966 by new s. 13(1) reducing term of office of Vice. ChancellorS to 3 years and by new s. 12(2) providing procedure for their removaJ--Second Amending Act XI of 1966 introducing new s. 13A providing for appointment of new Vice-Chancellor within 90 days in place ·of appellant-Thus benefit of s. 12(2) ands. 13(1) denied to appellant-Whether classification of existing Vic!! -Chancellor and future appointees justified or discrimbuuory. As a result of the Osmania University (Amendment) Act Il of 1966, s. 12(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959, was amended to provide for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor alone; in s.
12 ( 2) a provision was introduced whereby he could only be removed from office by an order of the Chancellor passed on the ground of mis- behaviour or incapacity after enquiry by a person who was or had been a Judge of a High Court or the Supreme Court and after the Vic<>- Chancellor had been given an opportumty of making his representation against such removal Section 13 ( 1) of the 1959 Act was also amended so as to reduce the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor from 5 to 3 years. The 1959 Act was again amended later in 1966 by the Osmania University (Second Amendment) Act XI of 1966. Section 5 of thi5 amending Act in1roduced a new s. 13A into the 1959 Act whereby it wa. URT llEPORTS [1967] 2 S. C. R. have no b:aring in considering the attack levelled by the appellant -0n s. 13A of the Act. This is a clear case where the statute itself directs its provisions by enacting s. 13A, against one individual, viz. , the appellant; and before it can be sustained as valid, this Court m•.
ist be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for grouping the appellant as a class by himself and that such reasonable basis must appear either in the sta- tute itself or must be deducible from other surrounding circumstanoes. Ace-0rding to learned e-0unsel for the appellant, all Vioe- Cha11cellors of the Osmania University come under one group and can be classified only as one unit and there is absolutely no justification for gro4ping the appellant under one class and the Vice-Chancellors to be appointed in future under a separate class. In any event, it is also urged that the said classification has no rela- tion or nexus to the object of the enactment.
Our attention has been drawn to the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Second Amendment Biil, the material pare of which is as follows : "The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor has been reduced to three years under section 13(1) of the Osmania University Act as amended by section JO of the Osmania University (Amendment) Act, 1966. Section 13-A, proposed to be inserted by cbuse 5 Qf the Bill, enjoins that notwithstanding anything in the Act, the person holding the office of the Vice-Chancellor immediately before the conμnencement of the UllT . Rl! POJ. TS [' %7) 2 S. c. R. names submitted by a committee constituted under s. 12(2). The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor after the passing of the First Amendment Act, is to be made exclusively by the Chancellor under s. 12(1), as the section now stands. That is a circumstance, relied on by the respondent, for differentiating the appellant as an existing Vice-Chancellor from a Vice-Chancellor to be appointed under the Act, as amended.
Anotner ci~cumstance relied on is that the appel- lalnt has been a Vice-Chancellor for 7 years. In our opinion, these are not such vital or crucial factors which will justify treating the appellant as a class by himself, because the powers and duties of a Vice-Chancellor, either under the Act, prior to the amendment, or under the Act, after amendment, continue to be the same. To conclude, the classification of the appellant, as a class by himself, is not fo•lndcd on any intelligible differentia, which distinguishes him from other Vice-Chancellors and it has no rational relation to the object of the statute, and so s. 13A is hit by Art. 14. The appellant has attacked s. 13A, as discriminatory, relying upon a different provision, made under s. 33A, in respect of the Senate, Syndicate, Academic Council and the Finance Committee.
We have, however, not considered the question as to whether the appellant can be treated as falling under the same class, as the other authorities mentioned in s. 33A, as we have accepted the appellant's contention, based upon Art. 14, on other grounds. For the above reasons, we accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, and hold that s. 5 of the Second Amend- ment Act (Act XI of 1966), introducing s. 13A in the Act, is discri- minatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and, as such, has to be struck down as unconstit•;t;onal. The result is that the appeal is allowed, and the appellant will be entitled to his cost~ in the appeal, payable by the respondents, here and in the High Court. R.. K. P. S. Appeal allowed_ Ml9Sup. C. l. /66-2,S00-18-7-67-0IPP. A c I>
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.