LODHA, J - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ganesh Das Chawla has challenged the resolution of the syndicate of the University of Jodhpur dated 25th October, 1975 marked Ex. R/6, by which the services of the petitioner as Lecturer in the Department of Mining Engineering were terminated. The resolution reads as under: - "279. Reviewed the case of Shri G. D. Chawla, Lecturer in Mining Engineering Department in general and the Syndicate resolution 459 dated 9th December, 1972 in particular. Resolved that the service of Shri G. D. Chawla, Lecturer in the Department of Mining Engineering is terminated with immediate effect and salary for one month be paid to him and the syndicate be informed. This decision is in supersession of syndicate resolution No. 459 dated 9-12-72 and any other decision of the Syndicate which might have been taken on the subject. Dr. Alam Singh dissented" It may now be relevant to state a few facts which led to the passing of the impugned resolution.
(2.) THE petitioner who is B. Sc. Metallurgy Engineering and was formerly appointed as Metallurgist in Vijai Metal Works, Kanpur, was appointed temporarily as Lecturer Metallurgy in the University of Jodhpur vide appointment order Ex. 1 dated 16th September, 1965. THEreafter the petitioner appeared before the selection committee in the years 1965 and 1967 alongwith other candidates, but the Selection Committee did not approve of any candidate for the post of Lecturer in Assaying and Metallurgy with the result that the petitioner continued in the post as a temporary Lecturer. Subsequently by an order dated 14/15th September, 1972 (Ex. 2), the Registrar of the University of Jodhpur informed the petitioner that his services would not be required with effect from 20th October, 1972. But only four days after that, the term of the petitioner was extended to October 31, 1972 vide letter dated 19th September, 1972 marked Ex. 3. Apprehensive about his future, the petitioner approach-ed the Syndicate against the order of termination of his services and the Syndicate in its meeting held on 21th October, 1972 decided that the term of the petitioner's appointment be extended till further orders or till some alternative arrangement was made whichever is earlier. THE petitioner was informed of this decision by the Syndicate vide Registrar's letter dated 30th October, 1972 marked Ex. 3a. It further appears that the resolution of the Syndicate dated 29th October, 1972 was modified on 9th December, 1972 as under: - "resolved that the notice issued to Shri G. D. Chawla, temporary Lecturer in the Mining Engineering Department terminating his Service with effect from 31st October, 1972 (A. N.) be withdrawn and his services be continued on the temporary basis beyond this till further order. In the meantime, the post be advertised so that Shri Chawla is able to face the selection Committee. " THE petitioner's case is that the Senate of the University of Jodhpur which is the Supreme body in the University passed the following resolution of 10th May, 1975 on the basis of the Syndicate's resolution dated 9th December, 1972. THE relevant ex-tract of this resolution of the Senate has been placed on record by the petitioner and is marked Ex. 3 B. "in view of the Resolution No. 459 dated 9. 12. 72 of the Syndicate, Shri G. D. Chawla's appointment he continued till be faces a regular selection committee. " However, to the misfortune of the petitioner it is alleged that the impugned resolution dated 25th October, 1975 as extracted above, was passed by the majority of the Syndicate by which the services of the petitioner were terminated wit immediate effect. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Senate of the University is the Supreme authority and, therefore, the Syndicate had no jurisdiction to override the decision of the senate and thereby terminate the petitioner's services. The reply on behalf of the University is that when the impugned resolution of the Syndicate was brought to the notice of the Senate the latter took note of it and did not choose to review or alter or disapprove it and consequently the Senate must be deemed to have approved the resolution of the Syndicate terminating the petitioner's services. In support of its contention the University has placed reliance on minutes of the adjourned meeting of the Senate hele on 9th November, 1975, a copy of which has been placed on record and marked Ex. R/7. The relevant portion of the minutes on which reliance is being placed reads as follows: - "the Senate noted the resolution (reproduced below) passed by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 25th October, 1975. " The short point that arises for determination is whether the decision of the Syndicate dated 25th October, 1975 has been ratified by the Senate as contended on behalf of the University. It is not denied before me that the Senate is the Supreme authority of the University and has the power to review the acts of the Syndicate and is authorised to exercise for by the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 (Act No. 17 of 1962) (which will hereinafter to referred as 'the Act" ). In this connection reference may be made to section 15 which reads as under: - "s. 15 (1) 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". Mr Mridul has argued on behalf of the University that from the words "the Senate noted the resolution" the only reasonable inference is that the Senate ratified and adopted the impugned resolution of the Syndicate. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon Anand vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1 ). On the other hand, Mr. Agarwal has referred to Rajvi Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) in support of his contention that a merely saying that the Senate had noted the resolution of the Syndicate would not amount to adopting of the Syndicate's resolution by the Senate. He has also argued, in the alternative, that the meeting of the Senate held on 8th November, 1975 at which the impugned resolution of the Syndicate against the petitioner was noted was illegal and no valid meeting in the eye of law because the meeting of the Senate took place after the notice of this case was served on the Univer-sity on 30th October, 1975 and further that the question of termination of the petitioner's service was neither in the agenda of this meeting nor there was quorum. Before going into the question of the validity of the meeting of the Senate held on 8. 11. 75 I would consider the question whether the Senate can be said to have adopted or ratified the impugned resolution of Syndicate dated 25th October, 1975. The relevant provision for consideration in Anand vs. State of Rajasthan and others (i) was as follows: - ''the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area as may be specified in the notification: Provided that no area within the limits of a municipality shall be included in the area specified in such notification except after consultation with the Municipal Board concerned, as the case may be. " The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in that case was that the Municipal Board, Balotra was never consulted by the State before the marked area was declared so as to include the Municipal limits in the market area and in reply it was submitted that the Director of Agriculture has addressed a letter to the Chairman, Municipal Board that it was proposed to apply the provisions of the Act to the grain market, Balotra and, therefore, the views of the Municipal Board in this connection may be indicated. It was further stated that the Municipal Board thereafter did not choose to reply to the letter but had later on passed a resolution that the Municipal Board did not favour the establishment of any such market. It was thus argued that there was full compliance with the provisions of the Act regarding consultation. The Director in his turn addressed a letter to the Secretary and the same was placed before the Minister who approved the proposal. The learned Judges held that this constituted sufficient compliance with the provisions of the statute even though it had not been shown that the Director was delegated the powers of the State Government for having consultation. In this connection after quoting a passage from Fletcher v. Minister of Town & Country Planning (18 (1947)2 All E. R. 496 at page 500, the learned Judge observed that it would depend on the precise facts of each case as to whether there was consultation and no useful purpose would be served by formulating words of defini-tion. In the conclusion it was held that the Municipal Board, Balotra did have sufficient opportunity or material to express its opinion in the matter and there was no substance in the petitioner's contention that there was any breach of the proviso. A narration of the facts of the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the University would go to show that the facts of the present case are distinguishable. The question that precisely arises in the present case is whether the Senate had adopted or ratified the impugned resolution of the Syndicate. It is true that the Senate had noted the impugned resolution of the Syndicate but does it mean that it had adopted or ratified the same ?
(3.) THE word "noted" has been defined in Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary as "marked". In Oxford English Dictionary Vol. III the word "noted" has been defined to mean "that is specially noticed, observed or marked". In Rajvi Amarsingh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan put note that "his Highness Rajpramukh has to see (this document) as this relates to an important matter regarding the services. The secretary to the Rajpramukh submitted it to His Highness the Rajpramukh "for gracious perusal" and the Rajpramukh noted having "seen" the document " It was held that the Rajpramukh was only asked to see the document and he did so without expressing his own approval or disapproval of the same. It was observed that learned and experienced officers through whose hands the document had passed could be presumed to know the difference between "approval" and "perusal". While the scheme was submitted to the Chief Minister for approval it was only submitted to the Rajpramukh for perusal. Thus the utmost that can be said in favour of the stand taken by the University is that the Senate had noticed the impugned resolution of the Syndicate but from this it cannot be inferred that the Senate had approved, adopted or ratified the same. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to hold that by only noticing the impugned resolution of the Syndicate, the earlier resolution of the Senate dated 10th May, 1975 had been abrogated. In this view of the matter the other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the meeting of the Senate held on 8th November, 1975 was not legal and valid and so also the counter contention advanced on behalf of the University that the petitioner being a third party cannot raise this objection need not be examined. ;