- (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitutlon, the prayer is that by issuing a writ of certiorari the order dated 29th July, 1991, passed by the Chancellor, respondent, and communicated to the petitioner on 16th October, 1993 (Aunexure-5 to the writ petition) be quashed. There is a further prayer for issuance of at writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner treating the Selection Committee to have been properly constituted.
(2.) THERE is a personal promotion scheme and the petitioner having completed 10 years service as Reader was entitled to be selected as Professor. For that purpose Selection Committee was constituted under Section 31 (4) of the State Universities Act, 1973 (the Act for short). There were two Experts nominated and the result of the Selection Committee, which met on 8th February, 1990, to select a proper candidate for the purpose, was in favour of the petitioner. The result was, however, submitted in a sealed cover, which was furnished before the Executive Council on 5th August, 1990. The Executive Council, however, did not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee and consequently made a reference under the provisions of Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act to the Chancellor, who has decided the matter against the petitioner holding that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as required under Section 31 (5) (a) and (d) of the Act. Shri R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that here was no illegality in the constitution of the Selection Committee and even f Dr. G P. Srivastava participated as an Expert in place of Dr. R. K. Srivastava, though there was no such person, there could not be any illegality or irregularity much less the same did not affect the merits of the selection in view of Section 66 of the Act. Consequently, the order of the Chancellor deserves to be quashed. Shri S. N. Upadhya, learned counsel for the respondents however, urged that Section 66 of the Act was not very material and no interference is called for with the impugned order
(3.) HAVING scrutinised the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion the provision of Section 66 of the Act were not kept In mind by the Chancellor while disposing of the Reference made by the Executive Council. The provisions of Section 66 of the Act are extracted :- 66. Proceeding not to be invalidated by vacancies, etc,...No act or proceeding, of any authority or body or committee of the University shall be Invalid merely by reason of... (a) any vacancy or defect in the constitution there of, or (b) some person having taken part in the proceedings who was not entitled to do so, (c) any defect in the election nomination or appointment of a person acting as a member thereof, or (d) any irregularity in its procedure not affecting the merits of the case". The provisions of Section 66 of the Act have to be read not in isolation but in reference and context to other provisions and also along with the provisions of Sections 99 and 99- A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) which are In parimateria, Section 66 of the Act has to be interpreted harmoniously. A Latin Maxim LITRES MAGIS VALEAT QUAM PEREAT appears to be the object of ithe Legislature for enacting Section 66 of the Act or Sections 99 and 99-A of the Code. This Maxim connotes that it is better to validate a thing completed than to invalidate ft otherwise and the intention of the Legislature (i. e. making (provisions for Selection Committee and interviewing the candidates to judge their suitability) would go waste.;