KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by one Dr. D. C. Jain questioning the validity of a resolution of the Syndicate of the Jodhpur University No. 174 dated 21/22/23rd November, 1973 and seeking an appropriate writ, direction or order.
(2.) THE writ petition is as equal to an earlier writ petition filed by Dr. D. C. Jain No. 1723 of 1973 against the University and Shri S. C. Thanvi, respondent No. 2, for a writ of quo warranto. THEre was a stay application moved in that writ petition by the petitioner Dr. D. C. Jain restraining the University from continuing Shri S. G. Thanvi as Professor and Dean in the Faculty of Law after his retirement on 9-10-74. THE University opposed the stay application and in its reply to that stay application took the stand that in view of the aforesaid resolution of the Syndicate there would be no need to pass any order for continuing Shri S. G. Thanvi as Professor in the Faculty of Law, but in terms of the resolution there would be an automatic extension of his tenure as Professor of Law till the end of the current academic session. THE resolution was passed on the recommendation of the Academic Council and the resolution of the Academic Council ran as follows: - "resolved to recommend that in future any teacher whose date of retirement falls due during the middle of the academic session may be permitted to continue as a matter of course in service of the University upto the end of the Sessions Provided that notwithstanding the above, no teacher shall be retained in service under any circumstances beyond the age of 65 years. " This resolution of the Academic Council was approved by the Syndicate The petitioner contends that it was beyond the competence of the Academic Council and the Syndicate to pass such a resolution and to make ineffective the Ordinance No. 328 of the University which required the cases for extension to be put up before the Syndicate. The petitioner further contends that the aforesaid resolution does not entitled Shri Thanvi to continue in service as he was not qualified to hold the post of a Professor in accordance with Ordinance No. 317 of the University. In elaboration it was pointed out that the powers of the Academic Council have to be gathered from Statute No. 7 which does not empower the Academic Council to make the recommendation of the kind. The petitioner avers that on 24-8-74 he made a representation by registered post to the Chancellor of the University requesting him to restrain the University from continuing Shri S. C. Thanvi in service after he attains the age of retirement and not to grant him any further extension. The petitioner then came to know that a meeting of the Syndicate was to be held on 9-9 74 and accordingly he sent a telegram to the Chancellor requesting him to attend to his representation and reply by the 2nd of September, 1974 and unless any relief was granted to him by that date he would be approaching this Court. On the above premises the petitioner prayed: (1) that a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued to the University directing it not to continue the respondent No. 2, Shri Thanvi, in service after he attains the age of superannuation on 9-10-74 and further not to grant him any exten-tion in service either under the impugned resolution or under any other Ordinance, Statute of the University for any period; (2) the petitioner be awarded such further relief which in the circumstances of The case would do complete justice to him in the matter. The writ petition has been opposed by the University as well as Shri S. C. Thanvi. It is denied by them that the impugned resolution of the Syndicate was invalid on any of the grounds taken by the petitioner or that Shri Thanvi was not qualified to hold the post of a Professor or that he could not be continued after 9-10-74 on the ground that he was not qualified to hold the post of the Professor. Then certain preliminary objections were raised. Firstly, it was urged that the petitioner has no legal right to file the writ petition, as he himself is ineligible for being appointed as Professor of Law and further he had not made any demand for justice to the proper authority of the University; nor had he waited for sufficient time to enable the competent authority of the University to make up its mind about the petitioner's representation. Then it was pleaded that the writ petition has been filed after undue delay. On 16-9 74, when the case came up before me, it was found that certain teachers of the University as also the President of the Jodhpur University Teachers Association, had made identical applications for being impleaded as party respondents. They submitted that they were vitally interested in the impugned resolution as that confers benefits on all the teachers of the University. After hearing arguments it was ordered that the various applicants be allowed to intervene and they could make oral arguments at the time the case would be heard. Accordingly, I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned counsel for the Teachers Association and such of the interveners individually who wanted to address me. At the commencement of the arguments it was felt that the question regarding the eligibility of Shri Thanvi to hold the post of Professor would arise in this case. I, therefore, put it to learned counsel for the petitioner if he would like the present writ petition to be linked up with the earlier writ petition already set down for hearing on 9th October, 1974. Learned counsel submitted that for the purposes of this writ petition he will be arguing on the assumption that Shri Thanvi was qualified to hold the post of a Professer when he was first appointed as such though he would be maintaining that for the purposes of extension the qualifications laid down in Ordinance No 317 have to be still satisfied. Therefore, I proceed to hear this case on the express understanding that it will be assumed that Shri Thanvi was qualified to be appointed as Professor when he was so appointed. I would be dealing with the preliminary objections a little later, because I may straight away say that I was not impressed much by the contentions. Before examining the resolution, 1 may read the relevant provisions of the University Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances.
(3.) THE Jodhpur University Act, 1962 became law on 12-6-62. THE powers of the University are defined by sec. 4. THEy are of general nature and cover the entire range of the activities of the University. Sec. 9 lays down as to who would be the Officers of the University; they are: (1) Chancellor, (2) Vice-Chancellor, (3) the Registrar, (4) the Deans of the Faculties, and (5) such other persons in the service of the University as may be declared by the Statutes to be officers of the University. Sec. 10, inter alia, lays down that the Governor of Rajasthan shall be the Chancellor and he shall be by virtue of his Office the Head of the University and shall, when present thereat, preside over the Senate and at convocations of the University. Sec. 11 lays down that the Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time paid officer of the University and further how he will be appointed and what would be his conditions of service. Sec. 12 defines the powers and authorities of the Vice-Chancellor and I may read this section: - "s. 12. Powers and authorities of the Vice Chancellor- (l) THE Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University, and shall, in the absence of the Chancellor, preside at meetings of the Senate and at any convocation of the University. He shall be an ex. officio member and Chairman of the Syndicate and the Academic Council He shall have the right to speak in and to take part in the proceedings of, the meetings of any other authority or body of the University but shall not, merely by virtue of this subsection, be entitled to vote thereat. (2) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor, possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (3) THE Vice Chancellor shall have power to convene meetings of the Syndicate, the Senate and the Academic Council: Provided that he may delegate this power to any other officer of the University. (4) THE Vice- Chancellor shall exercise general control over the affairs of the University and shall be responsible for the due maintenance of discipline therein. (5) In any emergency, when, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, immediate action is required, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action as he may deem necessary and shall at the earliest opportunity, report the action taken to the officer, authority, or body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter, but nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to empower the Vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and Provided for in the budget. (6) Where any action taken by the Vice Chancellor under sub sec. (5) effects any person in the service of the University to his disadvantage such person may prefer an appeal to the Syndicate within fifteen days from the date on which the action so taken is communicated to him Provided that the Syndicate may entertain an appeal under this subsection after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by the same, if it is satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for the applicant being unable to file the appeal within such period. (7) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) and (6), the Vice-Chancellor shall give; effect to the orders of the Syndicate regarding the appointment, suspension, removal or dismissal of officers and teachers of the University. (8) THE Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be prescribed by the Statutes and the Ordinances. " THE authorities of the University are as laid down in sec 14 (1 ). THEy are: (1) the Senate, (2) the Syndicate, (3) the Academic Council, (4) the Finance Committee, (5) the Faculties, (6) the Committees of Courses & Studies and such other authorities as may be declared by the Statutes to be the authorities of the University. Sec. 15 lays down that the Senate shall be the supreme authority of the University and shall have the power to review the acts of the Syndicate and the Academic Council and shall exercise all the powers of the University not otherwise provided for by this Act or the Statutes. This section further gives the constitution of the Senate with which we are not concerned at the moment. Sec. 16 lays down that the Syndicate shall be the executive body of the University and shall consist of the persons indicated therein. Sec. 17 provides that the Academic Council shall be the chief academic body of the University and shall subject to the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances have the control and general supervision and be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination within the University and shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed upon it by the Statutes. It shall have the right to advise the Syndicate on all academic matters. THE constitution of the Academic Council and the term of office of its members other than ex officio members shall be prescribed by the Statutes. Sec. 22 lays down how the Statutes are made and with it we are not concerned at the moment. Sec. 24 lays down how the Ordinances shall be made. It is provided that Ordinances shall be made by the Syndicate, but no such Ordinance shall take effect until it has been approved by the Chancellor after considering the views of the Senate. THE proviso to this section is not important and I may not read the other provisions of this section, as they are not relevant for the purpose in hand. Sec. 25 provides that the authorities of the University may make regulations consistent with this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances. THE regulations are, by and large, to make provision for procedural matters for the meetings of the various bodies and for keeping of the record of such meetings. Sec. 35 provides for conditions of service of the salaried officers and teachers of the university. It provides that every salaried officer and teacher of the University shall be appointed by means of a written contract. THE contract shall be lodged with the Registrar of the University and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the officer or teacher concerned. Statute 7 lays down the powers of the Academic Council. I need not read the whole of it. Suffice it to say that it deals with mostly matters relating to the academic sphere. Statute 5 lays down that the Syndicate shall, subject to the control of the Senate, manage and administer the revenue and property of the University and the conduct of all administrative affairs of the University not otherwise provided for. It, inter alia, lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, the Syndicate shall, in addition to all other powers vested in it, have the powers to appoint from time to time the Registrar, Librarian, Principals of Colleges and Heads of Institutions established by the University and such Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff as may be necessary on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose, provided that no action shall be taken by the Syndicate in respect of the number and the emoluments of teachers otherwise than after consideration of the recommendations of the Academic Council. Further it empowers the Syndicate to entertain and redress any grievances of the officer of the University, the teaching staff and the University's servants who may for any reason feel aggrieved, otherwise than by Act of the Senate. The Ordinances lay down the conditions of service of the teachers. I may read the ordinance that deals with the Faculty of Law. "o. 317. The following shall be the minimum qualifications for appointment of University teachers as required under Statute 7 (ii) (c) or as may be modified from time to time. 3. Faculty of Law - Lecturer - (a) A first or second class Master's degree in law or first or high second class degree in Law with 3 years teaching or 3 years practice at bar. Reader - (a) A first or second class Master's degree in Law or first or second class degree in Law with a post-graduate degree in Humanities or Social Sciences. (b) Experience of teaching post-graduate and/or degree classes for 5 years or atleast 5 years practice at the bar. Professor - (a) A first class LL. M or LL B. with a post-graduate degree in Humanities or Social Sciences with about five years experience at bar (b) Administrative and teaching experience of at least five years as Head of an Institution. " Then Ordinance 328 which makes provision for extension of tenure of a teacher reads as follows - "o. 328 All permanent whole time employee of the the University shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. In special circumstances which must be recorded in writing, a person may, however, be retained in service after the date of retirement. Such an extension shall be given for not more than two years at a time, subject to the maximum of five years provided the officer concerned remainms fit for duty. " This Ordinance lays down that all permanent whole time employees of the University including the teachers shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years, but in special circumstances which have to be recorded in writing a person may, however, be retained in service after the date of retirement subject to the limitations that such an extension shall be given for not more than two years at a time and further subject to the limitation that the maximum period to be allowed would be 5 years, provided the officer concerned remains fit for duty. The argument has ebbed and flowed around the language of the impugned resolution and particularly the words "may be permitted to continue as matter of course". While the petitioner contends that the resolution does not do away with the necessity of approaching the Syndicate for the extension of tenure of a teacher who is superannuating, learned counsel for the University and some of the interveners argued to the contrary. I have devoted anxious consideration to these crucial words. These words, in my humble opinion, imply that there is some one who permits to continue and then there is some one who is permitted to continue. The resolution has to be given its ordinary meaning as, in my view the meaning is quite clear and does not admit of any ambiguity. Rules of interpretation may be pressed into service, if there is any ambiguity in the language employed in the resolution, or it would otherwise lead to an absurd result. Therefore, giving the resolution the meaning which the clear words employed therein carry, it means that inspite of this resolution the extension of tenure of an employee going to superannuate will not be automatic, but it will be for the competent authority to pass an appropriate order, if it so likes to continue an employee in service even after his superannuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the recommendation in the form of this resolution could not have been made by the Academic Council. I find it difficult to hold the resolution of the Syndicate to be invalid on that ground. Firstly, there is sec. 17 of the University Act which, inter alia, gives the rights to the Academic Council to advise the Syndicate on all academic matters. It is difficult to hold that when a teacher retires in the mid session and some arrangement has to be thought of for meeting the difficulty that may be created on that account, it will not be an academic matter. It may have a bearing on the standard of imparting education and will thus very much be a matter within the sphere of the Academic C ouncil. But, even if that were not so, it will not mean that the competent authority namely, the Syndicate, could not have taken note of this recommendation of the Academic Council even if the making of such a recommendation may not strictly fall within the ambit of latter's sphere. The Syndicate could have informed its mind regarding this through any agency. The teachers association too have made a representation for making such a provision as was done by the impugned resolution. It is true, the Syndicate has not passed any independent resolution of its own in so many words except passing a resolution for approving the recommendations of the Academic Council as contained in its resolution, but the moment the resolution of the Academic Council was approved by the Syndicate it became its own resolution, as if the whole thing had been rewritten by it in the terms the resolution was presented to it by the Academic Council. ;