Gujarat High Court
Bipinchandra Purshottamdas Patel And ... vs Sardar Patel University And Anr. on 20 April, 2006
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
JUDGMENT Abhilasha Kumari , J.
Page 1228
1. The first petitioner herein is the Secretary of Shree Charotar Education Society, Anand, which is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Page 1229 Act, running various educational institutions in and around Anand. The second petitioner is the Principal of Bhikhabhai Patel Arts College, Anand and is a member of the Senate of Sardar Patel University (respondent No. 1). The petitioners are aggrieved by the Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003 passed by the Syndicate of the respondent No. 1 University selecting and appointing the respondent No. 2 as Dean of the Arts Faculty.
2. I have heard Shri Shirish Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mitul K. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and have gone through the material on record. Shri Shirish Joshi has submitted that the Sardar Patel University has been established under the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the appointment, election or selection of the authorities and officers of the said University are governed by the provisions made under the Act and the Statute and Ordinances made thereunder. Any appointment, election or selection made in breach of the provisions of the Act or Statute would be ultra vires and void. According to him, the selection and appointment of respondent No. 2 as Dean of the Arts Faculty is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Act and Statute and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside and a direction should be issued to the respondent University to declare the petitioner No. 2 as having been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty for a period of three years with effect from 9.12.2003 to 8.12.2006. He further submits that vide Resolution No. 6 of the Syndicate of the respondent University dated 18.11.2003 the respondent No. 2 was selected and appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty of the said University. In fact, the petitioner No. 2 was a Principal whereas the respondent No. 2 was a senior lecturer of an affiliated college and, therefore, the petitioner No. 2 was more eligible and should have been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty. Referring to the Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003, Mr. Shirish Joshi has argued that since it was resolved that the bio data of senior teachers should be invited and verified by a committee nominated by the Vice Chancellor and should be placed with the recommendations of the Committee before the Syndicate, this procedure should have been followed while appointing the Dean of the Arts Faculty and the bio data of the petitioner No. 2 should have been called for and submitted in the manner that has been resolved. The Rules in vogue have not been followed or made applicable during the appointment of the Dean. Had the rule referred to in Resolution No. 6 been followed, then the petitioner No. 2, who is a Principal and better qualified than the respondent No. 2, who is a Lecturer, would have been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty instead of the respondent No. 2.
3. Per contra, Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent University has argued that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated so as to entitle him to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, there is no violation of any provisions of the Act or Statute. The petitioner No. 1 is a Trust and, therefore, it can not be said Page 1230 that it had any fundamental right for the appointment of petitioner No. 2 as Dean of the Arts Faculty of the respondent University. According to Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, on the one hand, the petitioners are praying for quashing of Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003 and on the other, are seeking relief under the same Resolution, inasmuch as they are seeking enforcement of only one part of the Resolution and praying for quashing of the other part of the Resolution, which is contradictory and untenable. Since the selection and appointment of the Dean suffers from no statutory or legal infirmity, the same deserves to be upheld and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. After having heard both parties, it would be relevant to reproduce the contents of Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003, in order to appreciate the same, since it is the bone of contention and is being relied upon by both sides, in different ways. The original vernacular version of resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003 has been annexed to the writ petition at page 39 thereof. However, in order to resolve the controversy, only the relevant portion thereof is necessary, the extract of which is reproduced in English herein below (which is available in vernacular at page 42 of the paper book).
6.For appointment of dean in the Arts Faculty:
Upon taking up the aforesaid agenda, Shri D.C. Patel recommended the name of Shri K.J. Hasnani, Shri Bipinbhai Patel recommended the name of Principal R.P. Bhoi and Shri J.P. Thakkar recommended the name of Doctor Fakirbhai G. Patel of Anand Arts College.
After careful consideration at length, no decision could be taken unanimously regarding appointment of anyone of the aforesaid three members, the process of voting was adopted. At that time Shri D.C. Patel withdrew the name of Shri K.J. Hasnani respecting the request of the members. At that, Chairman informed the members to show their preference by raising their hands, in order to show majority for the selection of a member out of the two members.
At that time 18 members were present in the meeting, excluding the Chancellor. In all 13 members gave consent in favour of Doctor Fakirbhai G. Patel whereas 3 members consented in favour of Principal R.P. Bhoi. Professor A.R. Jani and Professor D.S. Mishra remained neutral.
It is, therefore, resolved that there being majority of 13 members in his favour, Doctor Fakirbhai G. Patel of N.S. Patel Arts College, Anand should be appointed as the dean of Arts Faculty, under the University rules, from date 09/12/2003 to date 08/12/2006.
In addition it is resolved that in future, for the appointment of Dean in any Faculty, the Bi0 data of senior teachers qualified as per Rules should be invited and verified by a committee nominated by the Chancellor and should be placed with the recommendation of the Committee before the Syndicate.
Page 1231
5. This Resolution is to be appreciated in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and Statute of the University which govern the appointment of Dean. Chapter III of the Act provides for appointment, namely, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and the Dean of the Faculties, the Registrar and other Officers of the University. Chapter IV of the Act provides for the authorities of the University, such as the Senate, Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Faculties, the Board of Studies, the Board of Post Graduate Studies and Research, and such other bodies of the University as the Senate may declare by Statutes to be the authorities of the University. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy in issue Section 25, which provides for the Dean of the Faculty, is the only relevant Section and is reproduced as under:
25. There shall be a Dean of each Faculty who shall be appointed by the Syndicate in accordance with the Statutes. The terms and conditions of the office of a Dean shall be as prescribed by the Ordinances.
6. Ordinance 11(b) provides for the office of Deans of Faculties, their powers, duties etc. As per provisions of Section 25 the Dean has to be appointed by the Syndicate in accordance with the Statute. For this purpose, Statute No. 106 in Chapter X of the Statute is the key provision and reads as under:
106. The dean of the Faculty shall be appointed by the Syndicate from amongst the Professors or Readers in the Post-graduate Departments of the University or the Principals or Senior teachers in the constituent/affiliated colleges.
7. According to Statute No. 106, the Syndicate is required to undertake some exercise before appointing one person from the following category:
(i) The Professors in the Post-graduate Departments of the University
(ii) The Readers in the Post-graduate Departments of the University
(iii)The Principals in the constituent/affiliated colleges
(iv) The Senior teachers in the constituent /affiliated colleges.
8. The term of the office of the Dean is for a period of three years.
9. The crux of the above discussion is that the Dean of a Faculty is to be appointed under Section 25 of the Act and in accordance with the provisions of Statute No. 106.
10. During the course of the hearing today, Mr. Mitul K. Shelat has put on record an affidavit on behalf of the respondent University dated 20.4.2006 sworn by Shri Tushar Majmudar, Assistant Registrar, Sardar Patel University. It has been stated in the affidavit that apart from Section 25 of the Act and Statute No. 106, there are no other relevant provisions for the appointment of Dean. Mr. Mitul K. Shelat has also placed on record a copy of the Resolution dated 6.8.2004 of the Syndicate of the University whereby, the earlier Resolution dated 18.11.2003 has been partly modified.
Page 1232
11. Mr. Shirish Joshi has laid emphasis on the last paragraph of the Resolution dated 18.11.2003, which has been extracted above. According to him it should be interpreted to mean that the Bio data of senior teachers should be called for as per the rules and after verification by a Committee nominated by the Chancellor and should be placed before the Syndicate with the recommendation of the said Committee. This means that there are some rules which are in existence and should have been followed but have not been followed during the selection and appointment of the Dean of the Arts Faculty in which respondent No. 2 was appointed. This is the procedure which should have been followed but was not followed. Instead of this, the respondent No. 2 was selected and appointed by a show of majority of 13 in favour of respondent No. 2 and 3 in favour of petitioner. No. 2.
12. According to Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent University, the interpretation placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003 is not the correct one. He submits that it is very clear from the bare reading of the same that after the selection and appointment of respondent No. 2 was over by majority, it was further resolved that Sin future for the appointment of the Dean of any Faculty, Bio data of senior teachers, qualified as per Rules, should be invited and verified by the Committee nominated by the Chancellor and thereafter placed with the recommendation of the said Committee before the Syndicate. This was a future course of action which was recommended and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that this was the procedure which should have been adopted for the selection and appointment of Dean in the election that took place on that date.
13. After carefully considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent University, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is much force in the submissions made by Mr. Mitul K. Shelat. On the date of the election for Dean of the Arts Faculty, 18 members of the Syndicate of the University were present in the meeting. Out of this 18 members(excluding the Chancellor), 2 members abstained from voting and remained neutral and 16 voted by show of hand. The contest was originally between 3 persons i.e. Shri K.J. Hasnani, the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2. The name of Shri K.J. Hasnani was withdrawn, leaving the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 as the sole contestants in the fray. Out of the 18 voting members of the Syndicate, 15 voted in favour of respondent No. 2 and 3 voted in favour of the petitioner No. 2. The qualified Professors, Readers, Principals and Lecturers of affiliated colleges form the collegium out of which the candidates were to be selected. The respondent No. 2 is a senior lecturer of an affiliated college known as N.S. Patel Arts College and the petitioner No. 2 is the Principal of another affiliated college known as Bhikhabhai Patel Arts College. A perusal of the provisions of Statute 106 makes it clear that the Dean of the Faculty shall be appointed by the Syndicate from amongst the professors or Readers in the Post graduate departments of the University or the Principals or the Page 1233 senior teachers in the constituent/affiliated colleges. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 2 is better qualified or more eligible than the respondent No. 2 to be appointed as Dean since the provisions of this Statute bring both Principals and senior teachers of affiliated Colleges into the same zone of consideration without giving preference to either candidate.
14. The Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003 cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with the provisions of Statute 106. A perusal of the relevant extract of this Resolution makes it very clear that after the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 2 by majority had been concluded, it was further resolved that in addition to the above Resolution regarding the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Dean, a future course of action was resolved. According to this course of action, a procedure was laid down that hence forth, in future, for the appointment of dean in any Faculty, the bio data of senior teachers, who are qualified as per Rules, would be invited. The only rules in force are the provisions of Statue No. 106. The same would be verified by a Committee nominated by the Chancellor and placed with its recommendation, before the Syndicate. There are no separate Rules as is being interpreted and argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner No. 2. The reference to 'rules' in this paragraph of the Resolution is relatable to the qualification possessed by senior teachers. The bio data of those senior teachers qualified as per Rules is to be invited. The affidavit dated 20.4.2006, placed on record by the learned Counsel for the respondent University has clarified that apart from Section 25 of the Act and Statute No. 106 there are no other Rules governing the selection and appointment of Dean of any Faculty.
15. In any case, the additional Resolution after completion of the selection of Dean, laid down procedure that was to be followed in future i.e. with prospective effect and it does not stand to reason that the same should be given retrospective effect, when such was never the intention. It is to be kept in mind that this procedure was followed after the completion of the formality of selecting and appointing of respondent No. 2 as Dean and not before the said selection. It was only a future course of action, to be given prospective effect, and the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is the procedure which should have been adopted during the selection is highly untenable, on the very face of it.
16. On a plain reading of this Resolution, the intention of the members of the Syndicate, who passed the Resolution is very clear and no fruitful purpose can be served by distorting the obvious and simple meaning by a mere play of words. The Supreme Court in (Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat) has held as under:
29. By now it is well settled principle of law that no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its Page 1234 place. It is also trite that the statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved.
30. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. this Court said:
33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the basis of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.
31. In Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi and Ors. this Court held:
8... It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding a conflict and adopting a harmonious construction. The statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved...
17. Although, in the present case, it is not a Statute but a Resolution, that is to be interpreted, the same principles as enunciated by the Apex Court in the judgment referred to hereinabove, will apply. The wording of the said Resolution have to be interpreted in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and Statute which are applicable.
18. Mr. Mitul K. Shelat has also placed on record the Resolution dated 6.8.2004 whereby the Resolution dated 18.11.2003 under Item 6 has been partially modified to the effect that the bio data of the candidates, qualified as per Rules, for the appointment as Dean would be placed before the Syndicate. The requirement of placing the said bio data before the Committee nominated by Chancellor and thereafter Page 1235 placing it with the recommendation of the Committee before the Syndicate has been dispensed with.
19. The respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Dean of the Arts Faculty for a period of 3 years with effect from 9.12.2003 to 8.12.2006. From the submissions and arguments made before this Court it is obvious that there is no illegality or infirmity in the said appointment of respondent No. 2. There is no infringement of Section 25 of the Act nor of Statute No. 106 which are the only relevant provisions. The Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003 is merely a Resolution, which has recorded the process and procedure of selection and appointment of respondent No. 2 and, thereafter, has resolved a procedure for future selection, which has also been modified by Resolution dated 6.8.2004,referred to above. The selection already having taken place, the petitioner No. 2 can not be heard to say that the procedure to be adopted prospectively should have been adopted retrospectively. Taken at its face value this argument does not seem tenable as there is no infringement of any legal right of the petitioner, much less of a fundamental right. The petitioner was very much in the zone of consideration and he has lost the selection by majority, after participation in the selection process.
20. It is not the case of the petitioner that the selection/appointment of respondent No. 2 was done by any unfair means or that the process was vitiated by any mal-practice. Merely because the petitioner remained unsuccessful, the Resolution No. 6 dated 18.11.2003, appointing respondent No. 2 as the Dean of the Arts Faculty cannot be quashed and set aside.
21. The present writ petition is misconceived, and is, therefore, dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove, as being devoid of any merit. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.