- (1.) K. C. Agarwal, J. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut, dated 1st of February, 1982 passed under Section 13 (1) (a) (4) and (6) of U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Statute 13. 05 (f) of the First Statutes of the University. By this order the Vice-Chancellor appointed Capt, Bhagwan Singh as Administrator along with Principal of the College to deal with all the financial and administrative matters of the College. The relevant portion of this order is being quoted below. " (i) The present Management which is in shambles is declared defunct and Capt. Bhagwan Singh former Ambassador of India in Fizi and residing in Delhi is appointed Administrator till the new elections of the Management Committee are held. (ii) Captain Bhagwan Singh, as Administrator, along with the Principal of the college will deal with all the financial and administrative matters of the college. All the accounts such as maintenance fund, development fund and all other funds so far operated by the management committee will be operated by the Administrator and the principal jointly. " Challenging the aforesaid order Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us that the Vice-Chancellor has not been empowered by S. 13 (1) (a) (4) and (6) to appoint an Administrator. Hence the order made is invalid and is without jurisdiction. Reading the order as a whole, we find that the appointment of the Administrator was founded on the satisfaction of the Vice- Chancellor that the academic life of the College was totally disturbed owing to :- " (a) the division among the teachers of the college belonging to the two warring groups of the management. (b) the non-functioning of the president due to the court orders; no appointment of teachers to the posts lying vacant for quite sometime is possible. According to the provisions of the Act no appointment of a teacher is legal without the president of the Management. " Before passing the aforesaid order he set up a single-man inquiry committee headed by Dr. S. N. Singh former Principal of R. B. S. College, Agra, who reported that the College was in a very bad shape and for the welfare of the students and all concerned the immediate action was required to be taken. On being satisfied that urgent steps were required to be taken the Vice-Chancellor appointed the Administrator.
(2.) THE argument raised before us was that as the Legislature had conferred power of appointment of authorised Controller in a situation like the present on State Government the Vice-Chancellor should be held to have been impliedly barred from making such appointment. THE submission was that in case the legislature intended to confer any power of appointment on the Vice-Chancellor, a clear provision to that effect would have been made in the Act. It is true that Sections 57 and 58 lay down a procedure for appointment of authorised controller and authorise the State Government to make an appointment in cases where it records a satisfaction and finds conditions mentioned in these two provisions to be in existence, but the said power was that of the State Government. Moreover, from its very nature the power is such which is likely to consume time. Hence merely because of the power given to the State Government, the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the Vice-Chancellor could not appoint an administrator under S. 13 (6) is not tenable. Power under S. 13 is available to be exercised by the Vice- Chancellor only in urgent cases where immediate action is required to be taken. THE two powers, one conferred on the State Government and the other conferred on the Vice-Chancellor, are not competing with each other. THEre is nothing in the Act indirectly prohibiting the Vice-Chancellor from making an appointment of an administrator to meet the exigency of situation. In the instant case the. Vice- Chancellor has recorded his satisfaction about the requirement of making the appointment. As the grounds mentioned for appointment of the administrator appear to us to be relevant we cannot hold the order to be invalid. If in the exercise of the power the Vice-Chancellor would have been influenced by considerations that could not be lawfully taken into account or by the disregard of relevant considerations the court could hold that the power had not been validly exercised. But this is not the position in the instant case. The second argument of the learned counsel was that as S. 13 (1) (a) and (6) confers arbitrary powers on the Vice-Chancellor the same is capable of being used or used discriminately. We do not agree with this submission. The third proviso to this Section has provided a safeguard by laying down that the exercise of the power by Vice-Chancellor would be subject to the final order of the Executive Council. The order is temporary in nature and is required to be passed in urgent cases. Learned counsel next urged that as no opportunity was given to the petitioners the order was invalid. Without expressing any final opinion on this point that whether in a case like the present any opportunity is required to be given, we find from the counter-affidavit that the opportunity had been afforded to all concerned.
(3.) ON merits, learned counsel urged that as Malkhan Singh had been recognised by the Principal only two days before the passing of the impugned order the order should be deemed to be based on non- existent grounds and thus is invalid. It is true that Malkhan Singh had been recognised as president but from the admitted position it appears that a Civil Suit had been filed by Anoop Singh, the Vice-President and injunction had been obtained against him. Accordingly merely because the Vice-Chancellor recognised him as a president that did not mean that the grounds for appointment of authorised controller did not exist. After reading the affidavits we are satisfied that the College was in shambles and that immediate steps were required to be taken. In our opinion power conferred by S. 13 (1) and (6) could be used only in urgent cases needing immediate action, but the administrator appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of this cannot be permitted to remain in office for long. The administration of the college is run by a society which is elected on democratic principles. Hence in a situation like the present when the Vice-Chancellor found that no office-bearers were available for administration, he could appoint the administrator but he should have further given a direction to the administrator for holding of the elections in accordance with the bye-laws of the society so that the problem which had arisen in the administration of the college was solved. In the circumstances we consider it appropriate to direct the Administrator Capt. Bhagwan Singh who had been appointed as administrator to taken steps for holding of the elections of the society in accordance with its bye-laws and rules within two months from presentation of the certified copy of this judgment before him.;