Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Integral University vs Junaid Ahmed on 3 May, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.6825 of 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.9668 of 2017)
INTEGRAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
JUNAID AHMAD AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SLP(C)Nos.9162-9163 & 9158 of 2013
O R D E R
Civil Appeal No.6825 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 9668 of 2017) :
1. Leave granted.
2. The Integral University, Lucknow, has approached this Court, to assail the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), dated 7.3.2017, whereby the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University, was set aside.
3. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Integral University, invited our attention to the operative part of Signature Not Verifiedthe impugned order, which is reproduced below: Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2017.05.12 16:27:55 IST Reason: ..2/-.2.
“This is not disputed that vide order dated 21.03.2005, the eighth respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University for a period of five years w.e.f. 01.04.2005 even before his five years' tenure vide letter dated 22.08.2008, he was issued afresh appointment order again for five years w.e.f. 18.08.2008 and further vide office order dated 16.08.2013 his term has been extended for another five years w.e.f. 17.08.2013 to 16.08.2018. Section 10(1) of the Act, 2004 provides that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in such manner as may be prescribed for a period of five years.
Regulations 3.03 of the first Regulation, 2006 framed by the University reads that a person appointed as Vice Chancellor for five years shall, if he completes the age of 65 during the term of his office, retire from office. Admittedly, the eighth respondent has crossed the age of 60 years, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act, 2004 as well as Regulations 3.03 of the Regulations, 2006 framed by the University, we are of the view that the eighth respondent's appointment as well as his continuation as Vice Chancellor even after five years after his first appointment made for five years and particularly after completion of 65 years' age are in violation of statutory provisions of the Act as well as Regulations. Therefore, we arrived at conclusion that the answering respondent no.8 has failed to satisfy his authority to act as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University.” (Emphasis is ours)
4. Based on the factual position indicated in the extract reproduced above, the High Court vide its impugned order, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :
..3/-
.3.
“In the result, we hereby direct the competent authority to remove the eighth respondent from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University forthwith and stop his functioning as Vice Chancellor and further proceed for appointment of new Vice Chancellor in accordance with Rules expeditiously within one month from the date of communication of this order.”
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-University invited our pointed attention to the duration of appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar, which was sought to be set aside. It was submitted, that the instant appointment as Vice Chancellor was extended from 17.8.2013 to 16.8.2018. It was also submitted, that the solitary reason for setting aside the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor was, that he would cross the age of 65 years, during the term of his appointment. In fact, in the extract reproduced above, the High Court even noticed, that he had already crossed the age of 65 years.
6. We have examined the submission of the learned Senior counsel representing the appellants. It would be pertinent to notice, that the Integral University First Statutes, 2006, clearly prescribe the retirement of a Vice Chancellor on attaining the age of 65 years if he or she attains that age while in office. This is so provided for by Statute 3.03. The same is reproduced below :
..4/-
.4.
“3.03 A person appointed as Vice Chancellor for five years shall, if he completes the age of 65 years during the terms of his office, retire from the office.” (Emphasis is ours)
7. We are satisfied, that the High Court would have been correct in recording its conclusion, and the same would have been in conformity with Statute 3.03 of the Integral University First Statutes, 2006, if Shri S.W. Akhtar would have crossed the age of 65 years before or during the period of his last appointment as Vice Chancellor, which was from 17.8.2013 to 16.8.2018. It was submitted by the learned counsel representing the Integral University, that the admitted date of birth of Shri S.W. Akhtar is 20.1.1955, and as such, he would attain the age of 65 years only on 20.01.2020. In the above view of the matter, it would be pertinent to note, that he had not crossed the age of 65 years by the time he was appointed as Vice Chancellor, and would not even cross the age of 65 years during his extended tenure as Vice Chancellor from 17.8.2013 to 16.8.2018. It is therefore apparent, that the High Court clearly erred in arriving at a conclusion, that the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor was liable to be set aside on the basis of Statute 3.03.
..5/-
.5.
8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-University pointed out, that the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor to the Integral University, had been assailed before the High Court by Respondent No.1 herein - Junaid Ahmad, for a variety of reasons including, that the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar was in violation of Statute 3.02 of the Integral University First Statutes, 2006, which is reproduced below :
“3.02 The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of at least three persons to be recommended by a Committee consisting of three members, of which two shall be the members of the Executive Council nominated by it and one shall be nominated by the President of the Education Society.” (Emphasis is ours)
10. It was submitted, that the Committee postulated for recommending the names of at least three persons to the Chancellor, for appointment as Vice Chancellor, and the Vice Chancellor did not have to make any recommendation in the manner contemplated in Statute 3.02. It is however acknowledged, that the High Court did not examine the ..6/-
.6.
matter on all the issues canvassed before the High Court, but had disposed of the same, by taking into consideration only the second of the series of contentions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel representing Respondent No.1.
11. During the course of hearing by us, Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel, representing the Integral University, very fairly acknowledged, that the Committee contemplated under Statute 3.02 made recommendation of only one candidate, namely, Shri S.W. Akhtar, and did not recommend a panel of at least three persons, as is contemplated under Statute 3.02. It was further submitted, that if an opportunity is afforded to the Integral University, it would remedy and rectify the infirmity.
12. We do not wish to record any finding on the submission based on the challenge to the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor, under Statute 3.02. We would, however, leave it to the High Court to adjudicate upon the same on merits, along with other issues, that were canvassed before the High Court, on behalf of Respondent No.1, in his challenge to the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar (as Vice Chancellor, of the Integral University). Accordingly, we hereby while setting aside the impugned ..7/-
.7.
order of the High Court, remand the matter for the adjudication of all the issues raised by Respondent No.1-Shri Junaid Ahmad, in consonance with law.
13. Parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 15.5.2017.
14. We do not wish to order the reinstatement of Shri S.W. Akhtar (as Vice Chancellor) pending consideration before the High Court for two reasons. Firstly, because of the position adopted by the Integral University before the Court, it is obvious, that the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar had been made in violation of Statute 3.02, of the Integral University First Statutes, 2006. And secondly, for the reason, that Shri S.W. Akhtar has not approached this Court to assail the impugned order dated 7.3.2017. We are informed, that the impugned order dated 7.3.2017 has been given effect to, and that, Shri S.W. Akhtar has relinquished the post held by him as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University.
15. Keeping in view the fact, that the issue involves the question of validity of the appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor, we hope and expect, that the High Court will examine the matter at its earliest convenience.
..8/-
.8.
16. The appeal is allowed. Pending applications shall stand disposed of.
SLP(C)Nos.9162-9163 and 9158 of 2013 :
Post for hearing along with Civil Appeal No.2286/2006.
........................CJI.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] ........................J. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] ........................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] New Delhi;
3rd May, 2017.
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).9668/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07/03/2017 in SB No.1345/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) INTEGRAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS JUNAID AHMAD AND ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C)Nos.9162-9163/2013 (With appln. for directions & Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C)No.9158/2013 (With prayer for Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 03/05/2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Singh,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Deepika Kalia,Adv.
Mr. Kapish Seth,Adv.
For Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,Adv.
Mr. J.P. Cama,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Dilip annasaheb Taur,Adv. Mr. Amol V. Deshmukh,Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra,Adv. No.1 Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman,Adv.
Nos.5&6 Ms. Udita Singh,Adv.
..2/-
.2.
Nos.6&7 Mr. Navin Prakash,Adv.
Mr. Gopi Chand,Adv.
No.8 Mr. Ravinder Agarwal,Adv.
State of Mr. Kunal A. Cheema,Adv.(Addl.Govt.Adv.)
Maharashtra Mr. Yogesh K. Ahirrao,Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Adeel Gaffar,Adv.
Ms. Aparna Jha,Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri,Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal,Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari,Adv.
Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai,Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,Adv.
Ms. Prerna Mehta,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal No.6825 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 9668 of 2017) :
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C)Nos.9162-9163 and 9158 of 2013 :
Post for hearing along with Civil Appeal No.2286/2006.
(Sarita Purohit) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed order in C.A.No.6825/2017 arising out of SLP(C)No.9668/2017 is placed on the file)