University qualification deeming rule and natural justice protections upheld in challenge to appointment and termination orders.
Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act was upheld because the date-based classification had a rational basis and the provision was read down to confine the Chancellor's scrutiny to compliance with the Act and University rules, while requiring the Commission to hear the teacher concerned; it was therefore not discriminatory under Article 14. The later Chancellor's order, issued after notice and hearing, was treated as a fresh order rather than an unauthorised review and was not vitiated by breach of natural justice. Rule 1(6) of the University Statutes was construed as a protective deeming provision for teachers confirmed before 1 July 1952, so the teacher was treated as possessing the minimum qualification for appointment as Principal and the termination-linked directive was invalid.
Issues: (i) Whether section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act, No. 13 of 1962 was unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the Chancellor's order dated 18 August 1962 and the subsequent order dated 18 February 1963 were invalid for breach of natural justice or want of power of review; (iii) whether a teacher confirmed before 1 July 1952 was entitled, by virtue of chapter 16, rule 1(6) of the University Statutes, to be treated as possessing the minimum qualification for appointment as Principal.
Issue (i): Whether section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Amendment) Act, No. 13 of 1962 was unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The dates used in section 4 were held to have a rational basis linked to the legislative history and the emergence of the University Service Commission. The provision was read down so that the Chancellor's power extended only to scrutinising whether the relevant appointments, dismissals, removals or reductions in rank complied with the University Act and the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Rules, both substantively and procedurally. The section was also read as requiring the Commission to hear the teacher concerned before making its recommendation, thereby incorporating the requirements of natural justice. On that construction, the provision was not discriminatory.
Conclusion: Section 4 was upheld and was not invalid under Article 14.
Issue (ii): Whether the Chancellor's order dated 18 August 1962 and the subsequent order dated 18 February 1963 were invalid for breach of natural justice or want of power of review.
Analysis: The first order, made without hearing the appellant, would have been vulnerable on its own. However, before it was acted upon, notice was issued and the appellant was heard by the Commission. The later order was treated in substance as a fresh order passed after observance of natural justice rather than as an unauthorised review. On that footing, the later order was not vitiated by procedural unfairness.
Conclusion: The challenge based on natural justice and absence of review power failed insofar as it related to the later order.
Issue (iii): Whether a teacher confirmed before 1 July 1952 was entitled, by virtue of chapter 16, rule 1(6) of the University Statutes, to be treated as possessing the minimum qualification for appointment as Principal.
Analysis: Rule 1(6) was construed as a protective deeming provision for teachers already in service and confirmed before 1 July 1952. The deemed equivalence to the minimum qualification was held to attach generally and not merely to the particular post held at the time the Statutes came into force. Accordingly, the appellant, though in fact holding a third class Master's degree, was to be treated as having the requisite second class Master's degree for future promotion or appointment, including appointment as Principal.
Conclusion: The appellant satisfied the statutory qualification by virtue of the deeming provision, and the order requiring him to obtain a second class Master's degree or face termination was invalid.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with the Chancellor's later order quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming provision conferring minimum qualification on a class of protected employees operates for future purposes unless the statute clearly limits it, and a validating power under a special enactment must be read consistently with reasonable classification and the requirements of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
