Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – s.14(1) – Non-compliance with – Appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University, if was non-est and void ab initio: Held: Yes – Under s.14(1), the Sponsor must appoint a person suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University, however, such appointment is ‘subject to the approval’ of the Visitor – Thus, the appointment of the Chancellor, made by the University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law – The phrase ‘subject to’ means ‘conditional upon’ in law – Therefore, the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval of the Visitor – The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor – However, in the present case, the Visitor’s approval was never granted for the appointment of the Chancellor of the University – Thus, the procedure prescribed u/s.14(1) for the appointment of the Chancellor was not duly followed by the CMJ University – Division Bench of the High Court rightly declared the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University as invalid and non-est in the eyes of law – To this extent, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 36, 39, 44, 46] Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – s.48(2) – State Government dissolved the CMJ University vide order dated 31.03.2014 – Aforesaid dissolution order, if was passed adhering to the procedure provided u/s.48 and in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2013 in SLP(C) No.19617 of 2013 wherein it took cognizance of the recommendations issued by the Visitor indicating the irregularities committed by the CMJ University and directed the State Government to take appropriate action and pass a speaking order u/s.48, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellants:
Held: Yes – On facts, proper opportunity to show cause and take necessary measures for rectification was extended to the appellants against the proposed action of dissolution – State Government examined the replies to the show cause notices and passed the well-reasoned order dated 31.03.2014, by taking recourse to the powers conferred by s.48(2), dissolving the CMJ University with immediate effect on the grounds that the appellants neither satisfactorily explained the allegations set out in the show cause notices, nor could they provide adequate justification for the evident anomalies and irregularities – Also, the reminder letter dated 03.06.2013 issued by the State Government was in compliance with s.48(2) – Decision of the State Government dated 31.03.2014 dissolving the CMJ University, affirmed – Educational Institution – Dissolution. [Paras 55, 56, 58, 59]
Practice and Procedure – Remand of the matter, when not proper – Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the Single Judge for reconsideration on merit, while allowing the Writ Appeal: Held: By way of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench had quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Single Judge and upheld the procedure followed by the State Government in ordering the dissolution of the University u/s.48 – Division Bench was fully justified in quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Single Judge which had set aside the dissolution order dated 31.03.2014 and the show cause notices issued to the University by the State Government – However, it remanded the matter to the Single Judge for taking appropriate decision regarding the validity of order dissolving the University on merit, observing that the Single Judge only examined the dissolution order on procedural framework and did not enter into the merits of the said decision – The remand to the Single Judge was entirely unjustified and unwarranted as the controversy in the present case was exhaustively examined and conclusively determined on merits by the Division Bench, leaving no substantive questions or unresolved issues for re-determination on merits by the Single Judge – Thus, once the Division Bench had approved the procedure adopted by the State, in passing the dissolution order, the exercise of remand was an empty formality – Order of remand legally flawed and untenable – Wednesbury Principle. [Paras 60-65]
Interpretation of Statutes – Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – Absence of a deeming provision creating a legal fiction – Legal fiction can only be created by a statute and not by judicial interpretation – Plea of the appellants that repeated requests were made to the Visitor of the CMJ University seeking approval for the appointment of the Chancellor and a letter was also sent stating that if the Visitor did not provide approval within the specified date, it would be deemed as approval – However, there was no response – Thus, the appellants acting in a bona fide manner assumed that such inaction/omission on part of the Visitor amounted to a ‘deemed approval’ for the appointment of the Chancellor:
Held: Such contention is misplaced and unsubstantiated by law – There is no deeming provision in the Act creating such legal fiction as was assumed by the appellants – In the absence of any statutory flavour, a provision cannot be interpreted to create a legal fiction – Creating a fiction through judicial interpretation will amount to legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature. [Paras 42, 43]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.