BHAGWATI DHAR BAJPAI Vs. JABALPUR UNIVERSITY
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BHAGWATI DHAR BAJPAI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner Shri Bhagwati Dhar Bajpai has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Jabalpur University (respondent No. 1), Dr. Dhirendra Verma, Vice-Chancellor of the said University (respondent No. 2 ). Shri b. L. Pande, Reotor of the said University (respondent No 3), Shri S. C. Seth. Registrar of the said University (respondent No. 4) and Shri V. G. Pathak. Assistant Registrar of the said University (respondent No 5 ). praying that the ruling given at the meeting of the University Court on 25-1-1967 by the third respondent to the effect that the presentation of the notice by the petitioner to the fifth respondent, Shri V. G. Pathak on 34-1-1967 was not proper as the said notice had not been delivered to the Registrar according to the requirements of Section 18 (1) of the Jabalpur University Act (hereinafter called the Act) be quashed The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus to be issued to the third respondent who was Chairman of that meeting to re-commence the meeting for the purpose of duties in relation to the said notice whereby a no-confidence motion was sought to be brought against the second respondent, namely, the Vice-Chancellor of the university. It is also prayed that all other proceedings by the meeting be declared to be void and illegal and such other writ or direction may be issued as may appear to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) THE facts are simple. The petitioner is a member of the University Court of the jabalpur University. On 25-1-1967 an annual meeting of the University was scheduled to be held at 1 p. m. The petitioner desired to move a motion of no-confidence against Dr. Dhirendra Verma, Vice-Chancellor of the University. He therefore, went to the office of the Registrar of the University on 24-1-1967 at about 12 noon to deliver a written notice of his intention to move the motion of no-confidence at the meeting of the Court on the day following, namely, on 25-11967. When he went there, he was informed by the Assistant Registrar of the University, shri Pathak (respondent No 5), that the officiating Registrar, Shri S. C. Seth (respondent No. 4), had suddenly taken ill and had been removed to the Medical college Hospital. He was also told that the Deputy Registrar. Shri Kailas was on leave 11 is urged in the petition that Shri Pathak was in actual charge of the office as the senior most officer in the Registry and as he was ready and willing to accept the aforesaid notice with the enclosures intended to be delivered to the Registrar and addressed to him, the petitioner delivered the same to the said Shri Pathali when there were yet 24 hours for the commencement of the meeting on the following day at 12 noon and Shri Pathak transmitted the notice which he had received to the Vice Chancellor.
(3.) WHEN the Court met on 25-1-1967 at 1 p. m. , the no-confidence motion was included in the meeting and therefore in accordance with Section 18 (4) of the Act the Vice-Chancellor who would have normally presided at the meeting if the no-confidence motion was not there against him did not enter the house and did not preside at the meeting. The meeting thus commenced under the Chairmanship of shri B. L. Pande, Rector of the University.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.