Majority attendance valid at committee meeting when no quorum is prescribed, preserving the appointment recommendation.

Where no statute, rule or regulation fixes a quorum for a committee, a duly noticed meeting attended by the majority of its members is valid and its recommendation remains effective. The Court noted that notice had been given to all members and that the absence of one member did not invalidate the Selection Committee's meeting or the recommendation for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. It also found that the High Court had relied on assumptions not forming the basis of the Chancellor's order. The cancellation of the appointment could not therefore be sustained, and the appellant's appointment as Vice-Chancellor was restored as valid from the appointed date.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of any express provision fixing quorum for the Selection Committee, a meeting attended by two of the three members was valid and could support the recommendation made for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

Analysis: The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was required to be made from a panel recommended by the Committee constituted under Section 13 of the University of Saugar Act, 1946. The impugned cancellation rested entirely on the assumption that the committee meeting held with only two members present was illegal. The judgment held that the record showed due notice to all members, that there was no rule, regulation, or other statutory provision prescribing a quorum, and that mere absence of one member did not invalidate the meeting. In such a situation, the presence of the majority of members constituted a valid meeting, and the recommendation made at that meeting could not be treated as invalid. The Court also found that the High Court had relied on assumptions about the correspondence between members that were not the basis of the Chancellor's order.

Conclusion: The meeting of the Selection Committee was valid, the recommendation was legally effective, and the cancellation of the appellant's appointment could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's appointment as Vice-Chancellor stood restored and was declared valid from the appointed date.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no statute, rule, or regulation prescribes a quorum for a committee, the presence of a majority of its members at a duly noticed meeting is sufficient to constitute a valid meeting and sustain its decision.

---