H.R. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the decision taken by the Senate of the Panjab University Respondent on 27th July, 1969. whereby the Petitioner was not confirmed as the Professor and Head of Department of Laws in the said University and the post was to be advertised. The Respondent University is constituted under the Panjab University Act, 1947, as amended up -to -date (hereinafter called the Act). The University is a body corporate.
(2.) THE Petitioner, Dr. B. R. Chauhan, joined this very University in 1954 as Lecturer in the Department of Laws and was then promoted as Reader in the year 1963. On the retirement of the then Professor and Head of the Department in the year 1968, the post was advertised. A copy of the advertisement is Annexure R. 6 with the written statement of Respondent 1. Applications were invited for the post in the grade of Rs. 1,100 - -50/1,300 - -60 - -1,600 with benefit of provident fund on confirmation. It was mentioned in the advertisement that candidates would be interviewed by the Selection Committee and that appointment would be on one year's probation in the first instance starting from 1st April, 1968. The Petitioner was one of the Applicants who, after being interviewed by the Selection Committee on 2nd June, 1968, was selected for the post. The Syndicate in whom the executive Government of the University vests under Section 20 of the Act recommended to the Senate, in terms of the report of the Selection Committee, that the Petitioner be appointed as Professor and Head of Department of Laws in the grade of Rs. 1,100 - -50/1,300 - -60 - -1,600 on a year's probation. It was also recommended that the Petitioner be asked to take charge of the department immediately subject to the approval of the Senate, and the Vice -Chancellor be authorised to look into the claims of the Petitioner in order to fix his salary suitably in the said grade. Since there was no one holding charge of the department at that time, the Vice -Chancellor Respondent asked the Petitioner to assume his new duties immediately, with effect from 24th June, 1968, in anticipation of the approval of his appointment by the Senate. A copy of this letter is Annexure 'B' with writ petition. The recommendation of the Syndicate was put up on 26th July, 1968, before the Senate, which is the Supreme authority of the University, and also the appointing authority. A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Senate fixed for 26th July, 1968, as circulated to the members, is Annexure R -ll. There were several items in the agenda and item No. 33 related to the appointments of various persons in different posts and pay scales, the Petitioner being one of them and his name appears at serial No. 15 in that item. The Syndicate proceedings which formed a part of the agenda were divided into different paras. It appears that procedure of the University is that against each item to be considered by the Senate a brief reference is made to the subject -matter of that item and attention of the Senators is invited to the relevant para of the Syndicate proceedings so that they can know what are actually the recommendations. The respective paras are read and placed for approval before the Senate. Whenever the Senate does not approve of the contents of any para or part thereof, it is specifically so stated in its resolution. The procedure required to be adopted at a meeting of the Senate is given in statutory Regulations contained in Chapter IV of the Panjab University Calendar, 1968 Edition, Volume I. All motions are to be moved and seconded but proposals submitted by the Syndicate and entered upon the notice of the meeting, which in other words is the agenda, are by themselves treated as motions without the necessity of being proposed and seconded. A copy of the Senate proceedings of 26th July, 1968, has been filed as Annexure R -12 with the written statement of Respondent 1 and it is a voluminous document. There are several paragraphs and in paragraph XVII thereof, there are items 26 to 46, item No. 33 relating to various appointments and Petitioner's case appears at serial number 15 under the said item. We have it in these proceedings that items 26 to 46 were read out and unanimously approved. As to what proposals of the Syndicate were being approved, a reference in this connection is also made to the respective paras of the Syndicate proceedings. In the case of the Petitioner, para 13 is relevant and is referred to at serial number 15 of item 33 and it embodies the recommendation of the Syndicate that the Petitioner be appointed on one year's probation in the grade of Rs. 1,100 - -50/1,300 - -60 - -1,600, and the Vice -Chancellor authorised to look into the Petitioner's claim and fix his salary suitably in this grade. In pursuance of the senate resolution, letter of appointment, Annexure R -13, dated 28th December, 1968, was issued from the Finance and Development Officer of the University addressed to the Petitioner, by which the latter was informed, giving reference 1o his application, that the Senate at its meeting held on 26th July, 1968, had approved of the Petitioner's appointment as Professor and Head of the Department of Laws on a starting salary to be fixed by the Vice -Chancellor, and that the appointment was to be on one year's probation. It was also said in the letter that the appointment would be governed under the rules and regulations of the University.
(3.) THE Petitioner continued to work as Head of the Department til] the Syndicate at its meeting held on 21st June, 1969, recommended to the Senate that the Petitioner be not confirmed in his post as Professor and Head of Department of Laws and the Vice -Chancellor be authorised to make acting arrangements in anticipation of the Senate's approval. The Vice -Chancellor appointed Shri E. H. Banerjee, Respondent 3, who was already a Reader in the Department, as the acting Head of the same Department. The matter then came before the Senate in its meeting held on 27th July, 1969, when the Syndicate's recommendations were approved by an overwhelming majority in which only four out of seventy -one members present voted against the proposal of the Syndicate with the result that the Petitioner was not confirmed. Hence the present writ petition.;