Punjab University Vs. V.N. Tripathi & Anr [2001] Insc 431 (28 August 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Brijesh Kumar Brijesh Kumar, J.
Appeal (civil) 473-474 of 1998
The
above noted appeals since involve the same question for consideration, they
have been heard together and they are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
The
respondent Dr. V.N. Tripathi, filed a Civil Suit No.148/13.8.1986 against the
Punjab University, Chandigarh, through its Registrar and Shri R.P. Bumba, the
Vice-Chancellor of Punjab University, as the defendant. The Suit was decreed on
22.2.1991, declaring that the decision of the Punjab University saying that the post of the
Plaintiff in the Department of Mathematics as Lecturer was vacant w.e.f. 28.11.1985,
was wrong and bad in law. The plaintiff was to continue in service with
consequential benefits. The Senate of the University was however, left with the
option to take any action in the matter afresh in accordance with law. So far,
the respondent Smt. Shimla Devi is concerned, she had also filed a Civil Suit
No. 220 of 1984 which was decreed by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh on 27.3.1985 quashing the order of
dismissal of her services and she was to be deemed to be in service of the Punjab University with all consequential benefits. Punjab University through Registrar was impleaded as the defendant in the
Suit.
In
both the matters/aforesaid, appeals against the judgments and decrees of the
Trial Courts were preferred by the Punjab University.
The
respondents took an objection against the filing of the appeal on the ground
that the Registrar of the Punjab University was not authorised or competent to
file the appeals, in absence of any decision taken by the Senate of the
University. The objections, as raised by the respondents had been upheld in
both the appeals, by the First Appellate Court. The appeals were therefore,
dismissed on the same ground. The Punjab University thereafter preferred Regular Second
Appeals before the High Court, they also met the same fate. The appeals have
been dismissed on the ground that they had been filed by the Registrar, who was
not competent to file the same, hence, the merits were not considered by the
Appellate Courts. Regular Second Appeal No. 647 of 1996 was filed by the Punjab University in the case of Dr. V.N. Tripathi which was dismissed on
27.03.1996. The appeal namely (RSA) Regular Second Appeal No. 646 of 1996 in
the case of Shimal Devi was dismissed on 05.09.1997 inter alia referring to the
judgment dated 27.03.1996 in the case of Dr. V.N. Tripathi. The point for
consideration before us is as to whether the Registrar was competent to file
the appeals without any decision of the Senate of the University to that
effect; or not.
Learned
Counsel for the appellant relied upon the provisions contained under Section 21
of the Punjab University Act 1947, it reads as follows:- Registrar:- The
Registrar shall be whole-time paid officer of the University appointed by the
Senate. He shall be in charge of the administration of the University acting
under the immediate control of the vice-chancellor and shall represent the
University in all legal proceedings except where the Senate otherwise resolves
to the contrary.
On the
basis of the above provision, it is submitted that the Registrar is in-charge
of the Administration of the University and represents the University in all
legal proceedings. This right of the Registrar is ever available except in
cases where there is a resolution to the contrary passed by the Senate. It
entitles him to even file an appeal. The High Court and the Courts below have
not accepted this contention of the appellant and rightly. The Registrar no
doubt represents the University in all legal proceedings, but it does not mean
that he enjoys the authority to institute any suit or appeal or any other legal
proceedings at his own. The decision to initiate any legal proceedings has to
be taken by the authority competent to do so and thereafter in such
proceedings, for or against the University, Registrar would represent the
University. While representing the University, it would be open to the
Registrar to take all incidental steps necessary for prosecution of the
proceedings, but Section 21 can not be relied upon by the appellant to contend
that the Registrar would be entitled to initiate the legal proceedings at his
own. This contention raised before us, thus fails.
It has
next been submitted on behalf of the appellant that on the recommendation of
the Syndicate, the Senate of the University passed a resolution on 29. 09.1991 which
reads as follows:- The recommendations of the Syndicate contained in Item No.23
on the agenda were read out, and unanimously approved, i.e.:-
23.
That the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor be authorised to sue or file an appeal in
the court (under Regulation 10.2 at page 32 of the P.U. Cal. Vol. I, 1989) That
the action taken by the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor in cases where suits had
already been filed or appeals preferred by them stood ratified.
On the
basis of the above resolution, it is submitted that the action of the Registrar
in filing the appeals stands ratified, hence, the plea of the respondents that
the appeals are in competent has no force. Learned Counsel for the respondent
submits that the Senate of the University is the main body invested with powers
of entire management of the affairs of the University in accordance with
Statutes, Rules & Regulations in force. This would also include powers to
initiate legal proceedings as well. It is further submitted that under
Regulation 10.2 of the Regulation of the Punjab University, the Senate can delegate its
function to those authorities as mentioned in the said regulation and the
Registrar is not one of the authorities to whom the delegation could be made.
Therefore, it is submitted that the High Court was right in holding that the
action of the Registrar in filing the appeal was void and that being the
petition his action in filing the appeal could not be ratified. In support of
the above contentions, he has relied upon the decision reported in 1989 (3) SCC
page This case in our view will not help the respondent. The Executive Council
was competent to dismiss an officer of the University. On receipt of an inquiry
report against the officer, the Executive Council resolved to give full power
to the vice-chancellor to take the decision on the report. The vice chancellor
instead of acting on the basis of the inquiry report, appointed another Inquiry
Officer and on the basis of the second inquiry report, dismisses the officer,
of the University. The Executive Council sought to ratify the action of the
vice-chancellor in passing the order of dismissal but the Court did not accept
the same mainly on two grounds that the vice-chancellor could pass any order on
the basis of the report supplied by the Executive Council but he could not appoint
another Inquiry Officer and act on the basis of second report. And secondly,
the delegation of the power, under the statute was subject to approval by the
Chancellor which was lacking in the case, hence, the action of the vice
chancellor was held to be void ab-initio and no amount of ratification could
validate the order.
The
case pertains to the realm of disciplinary proceedings and dismissal of an
officer of the University by the authority competent under the enactment.
The
case stands on a different footing. The learned counsel for the Singh AIR 1971
SCC 761 , in this case the act of the holder of power of attorney in
transaction of sale, including presentation of the deed before the Registrar,
at a time when power of attorney did not authorise him to present the deed for
registration but the act was ratified in the subsequent power of attorney. It
was held that the ratification was valid and relates back to the date of
original act.
The
resolution dated 29.9.1991 is in two parts. The first part deals with the
delegation of the powers to the Registrar/vice-chancellor authorising them to
sue or file an appeal under the regulation 10.2 of the Regulations of the Punjab University. The other part pertains the suits or appeals which have
already been filed by the Registrar/vice-chancellor that act of filing of the
appeals has been ratified. The first part thus deals with delegations of the
power for acts to be done in future. The other part is not delegation of power,
but ratifying the action, which has already been taken by the authorities
mentioned therein by act of filing the appeals. It has already been noticed
that the Registrar under Section 21 of the Punjab Universities Act 1947 is authorised
to represent the University in all legal proceedings, except where there is a
decision of the Senate to the contrary.
While
representing the University, in view of the provisions under Section 21 of the
Punjab University Act, the Registrar would obviously be taking several steps in
prosecution of the legal proceedings. The Registrar would not be totally a
stranger in the matters relating to legal proceedings in the Court. In this
background if the Registrar filed the appeal, against the decision of the Trial
Court, which had gone against the Punjab University though strictly speaking
exceeded his authority, but his action in having filed the appeals was later on
ratified by the competent authority by resolution dated 29.9.1991 The Registrar
is a responsible officer of the University and has statutory powers under Section
21 of the Act to represent the University in legal proceedings. Had the Senate
not ratified the act of the filing of the appeal, it would of course have been
a different matter, but not thereafter. We also find no substance in the
submission made on behalf of the respondent that the ratification came very
late. In our view, it would not have any material bearing on the fact of
ratification of the action of the Registrar in filing the appeals. The
ratification has the effect of relating back to the time when the action was
taken without authority. Despite the ratification by the competent authority,
refusal to examine the matter on merits, would in no way serve the ends of
justice. It would only be hankering to the technicalities rather than to be
concerned with the intent and the substance. In view of the discussion held
above, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment passed by the High Court
and Appellate Courts below and remand the matters to the respective First
Appellate Courts for decision on merits. Since the appeals have become old they
shall be disposed of expeditiously. There would however, be no order as to
costs.
.J (S.Rajendra
Babu ) ..J.
Back