Certiorari for patent misconstruction upheld where university action was annulled on an erroneous view of statutory jurisdiction.

A supervisory writ of certiorari lies where a statutory authority acts on a patent misconstruction of the governing Act, and an administrative or university resolution may be annulled only if it is contrary to the Act or Statute. The Statutory qualifications for the professorial post, as continued under section 58, did not require a Master's degree in the specific subject, and the revised advertisement merely aligned eligibility with the Statute. Approval for direct recruitment had already been obtained, the Commission's recommendation remained valid despite the experts' non-presence at interviews, and the Syndicate's correction of the draft minutes reflected its actual decision. The Chancellor therefore had no jurisdiction to annul the proceedings, and the High Court's quashing order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chancellor had jurisdiction under section 9(4) of the Patna University Act, 1962 to annul the Syndicate's resolution appointing the professor, and whether the High Court was justified in issuing certiorari on the ground of an apparent error of law and misconstruction of the Act and the University Statute.

Analysis: The statutory qualifications for the post, as continued under section 58, did not require a Master's degree specifically in the subject concerned; the revised advertisement merely clarified that eligible candidates could hold the prescribed degree in Political Science or an allied subject and did not amend the Statute. The Vice-Chancellor had already obtained approval for direct recruitment under section 57, so no further approval was needed for consequential steps, including correction of the advertisement to conform to the requisition and the Statute. Under section 26(2), the two experts were required to be associated with the Commission before its recommendation, but the provision did not make their physical presence at the interviews mandatory; the Commission had the benefit of both experts' advice, so the recommendation was valid. On the third and fourth grounds, the record showed that the Syndicate had in fact decided not to accept the Commission's recommendation, and the correction of the draft minutes on 3 July 1963 merely aligned the record with the actual decision before the minutes were signed. Consequently, the Vice-Chancellor's reference back to the Commission fell within section 26(4), and the Chancellor's view that the Syndicate had no authority to act as it did was based on a misinterpretation of the Act. Since the impugned order rested on an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and a clear error of law on the face of the record, certiorari was available.

Conclusion: The Chancellor had no jurisdiction to annul the Syndicate's proceedings, and the High Court rightly quashed the order.

Ratio Decidendi: A supervisory writ of certiorari lies where a statutory authority assumes jurisdiction on the basis of a patent misconstruction of the governing statute, and an administrative or university resolution may be annulled only where it is contrary to the Act or the Statute.

---