HIDAYATULLAH, J.: - (1.)THE following Judgment of the courtwas delivered by
(2.)THESE are eight appeals against thejudgment and decree of the High court of Allahabad dated 15/07/1960, with special leave granted by this court. Bythe writ petitions, which failed before the High court, theappellants had asked that Resolutions Nos. 90, 94 to 96 and99 to 102 passed by the Executive council of the BanarasHindu University on 15/05/1960, terminating their servicesfrom 1/06/1960, be quashed. The names of the appellants,the posts they held and the gist of the Resolutions passedagainst them have been set down below : JUDGEMENT_619_AIR(SC)_1961Html1.htm
The cases of the appellants are very similar; but fall intotwo groups as indicated above. The differences are notmany, and some of them are indicated in the gist of theresolutions noted against their names. Other differenceswill appear from the facts, which are given below.

The affairs of the Banaras Hindu University, for reasonswith which we are not concerned, had been deteriorating, anda situation had arisen which required interventionimmediately. The President of India, in his capacity asVisitor and in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 5(2)of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, appointed aCommittee of Enquiry (known as the Mudaliar Committee)consisting of:1. Dr. A. L. Mudaliar (President)2. Mr. M. C. Mahajan3. Dr. P. Subbarayan4. Smt. Sucheta Kripalani5. Dr. Nairoji Wadia (Members)to enquire into and report, inter alia, on the general stateof discipline in the University, keeping in view thedisturbances in some of the Institutions of the University,and to suggest remedies and measures of reform for thebetterment of academic life and efficient functioning of theUniversity. The Committee made a report suggesting that a 'Screening Committee ' should be appointed to review theappointments made to the teaching staff and the work of theteaching staff, and that action should be taken in the lightof the findings of the Screening Committee.

On 14/06/1958, the President of India promulgated anOrdinance (IV of 1958) to amend the Banaras Hindu UniversityAct, 1915. By s. 8 of the Ordinance, the Statutes of theUniversity were amended, and in place of Statute No. 30,another Statute was substituted, which set up a ' ScreeningCommittee ', consisting of (a) a person who is or has been aJudge of a High court (Chairman), (b) the Vice-Chancellor(Ex officio) and (c) a person having administrative or otherexperience in educational matters, to examine the cases ofall persons holding teaching, administrative or otherposts in the University at the commencement of theOrdinance, in respect of whom there was reason to believethat their continuance in office would be detrimental to theinterests of the University, and to forward itsrecommendations to the Executive council to take such actionas it may deem fit.

The Ordinance of the President was repealed by the BanarasHindu University (Amendment) Act, 1958 (XXXIV of 1958),which re-enacted Statute No. 30 as follows:' 30. (1) If the Executive council has reasonto believe that the continuance in office ofany person who on the 14th day of June, 1958,was holding any teaching, administrative orother post in the University would bedetrimental to the interests of theUniversity, it may, after recording brieflythe grounds for such belief, refer the case ofany such person, together with the connectedpapers, if any, in its possession, to theSolicitor-General to the government of India:Provided that, where an allegation of thenature referred to in this subsection relatesto a member of the Executive council who washolding any teaching, administrative or otherpost in the University on the said date, theExecutive council shall, without consideringthe allegation, refer the case of such person,together with a copy of the allegation, to theSolicitor-General to the government of India.(2) If on any such reference the Solicitor-General to the government of India is ofopinion that there is a prima facie case forinquiry, he shall refer the case of the personconcerned to a Committee to be constituted forthe purpose by the central government andknown as the Reviewing Committee, which shallconsist of the following persons, namely :-(a) a person who is or has been a Judge of aHigh court nominated by the central governmentwho shall be the Chairman of the Committee;and(b) two persons nominated by the centralGovernment from among persons who have hadadministrative or other experience ineducational matters,(3) It shall be the duty of the ReviewingCommittee to examine the case of every personreferred to it by the Solicitor-General; andthe Reviewing Committee shall, after holding such inquiry into the case as it may thinkfit, and after giving to the person concernedan opportunity of being heard, if he sodesires, forward its recommendations to theExecutive council.(4) The meetings of the Reviewing Committeeshall be convened by such person as may beappointed for this purpose by the Chairman.(5) On receipt of the recommendations of theReviewing Committee, the Executive councilshall take such action thereon as it may thinkfit:Provided that when the recommendations relateto any such person as is referred to in theproviso to Ss. (1), such person shallnot take part in any meeting of the ExecutiveCouncil in which the recommendations areconsidered.(6) Before taking any action against anyperson on the recommendations of the ReviewingCommittee, the Executive council shall givehim a reason. able opportunity of beingheard.'

(3.)UNDER the powers granted by this Statute and after sundryprocedure, the Solicitor-General sent up the cases of theappellants (and some others, who are not before us) to theReviewing Committee. The appellants appeared before theReviewing Committee and represented their cases. Except inthe case of Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 484 of1960), whose case was kept pending because certain matterswere sub judice, the Reviewing Committee sent its findingsto the University. These findings were considered inrespect of the four appellants in Group I (above), and on 13/02/1960, the Executive council passed ResolutionsNos. 436 to 439 calling upon them to show cause why theirservices be not terminated, in view of the findings of theReviewing Committee that the continuance in office of thoseappellants was detrimental to the interests of theUniversity, which the Executive council had accepted. Thesefour appellants showed cause on 5/03/1960, No noticeswere, however, sent to the four appellants in Group IIabove, and this is one distinguishing feature in the cases.
The four appellants (Group I) filed petitions under Art. 226of the Constitution (W. Ps. Nos. 712 to 715 of 1960) onMarch 9,1960, in the High court of Allahabad for reliefagainst the proposed action. On the same day D. S. Mathur,J. passed an ad interim order as follows:' The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are directed until furtherorders, not to take any further proceedings against thepetitioners.'The Registrar of the University then applied to the HighCourt, and on 25/04/1960, Jagdish Sahai, J., made thefollowing order:' In supersession of the interim order dated9/3/1960, I order that the proceedings beforerespondent No. 2, Executive council of BanarasHindu University, arising out of therecommendations of the Reviewing Committeeshall remain stayed.'

On 15/05/1960, the Executive council of the Universitypassed a number of Resolutions. Resolution No. 89 took intoconsideration the explanations sent by the four appellants(Group 1) on 5/03/1960, and the order of the High court,and it was resolved:'........ that the consideration of the abovecases be postponed till after the writpetitions above mentioned are disposed of bythe High court.