Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Misc. Petn. No. 1 of 1975

Attorney(S)

B.C. Verma with S.S. Jha
for Petitioner; R.P. Pande (for Nos. 1
2 and 4) and L.S. Baghel
for No. 3
for Respondents.

Judges

R.J Bhave
J.P Bajpai, JJ.

Acts

Section 46 (b) of the Madihya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973
provisions of M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (Act 22 of 1973).
Section 46 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973
Sub-section (3) of Section 1,
Section 46 (b)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is a registered graduate of Awadesh Pratap Singh University (the University). He filed a petition challenging:

the registration of respondent No. 3, Shri Ramdhani Mishra, as a registered graduate of the University; and
the election of respondent No. 3 as a member of the Court of the University representing registered graduates.

The petitioner's core contention was that respondent No. 3 did not meet the qualifications prescribed under Section 46 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 for enrollment as a registered graduate, and therefore could not validly be elected as a member of the Court (such members must be from amongst the registered graduates).

The University (respondents Nos. 1 and 2) relied on a University resolution dated 1-12-1973 recognizing the Sahitya Ratna examination (held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag) as equivalent to the University's B.A. examination for a limited purpose (admission to the University's M.A. Previous). Respondents contended that degrees or conferrals by the Sammelan rendered it a "University incorporated by law in India" within the meaning of Section 46(b).

The petition was entertained and admitted for final hearing by the Court notwithstanding arguments about alternative remedies (such as approaching the Vice-Chancellor) because the case required interpretation of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. Parties were heard on the merits and documentary material concerning the legal status of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was considered.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether respondent No. 3 was eligible to be enrolled as a registered graduate of Awadesh Pratap Singh University under Section 46 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (specifically Section 46(b) regarding graduates of "any other University incorporated by law in India").
Whether an entity registered under the Societies Act (the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag) can be treated as a "University incorporated by law in India" for the purposes of Section 46(b).
Whether the petitioner's failure to pursue alleged alternative remedies (e.g., approaching the Vice-Chancellor) barred relief in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent No. 3 is not a graduate of Awadesh Pratap Singh University nor of any other "university incorporated by law in India" as required by Section 46 of the Adhiniyam.
Consequently, respondent No. 3's registration as a registered graduate is illegal and his election to the University Court (a seat reserved for registered graduates) is invalid.
The petitioner sought quashing of respondent No. 3's registration and his election to the Court.

Respondents' Arguments (Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and Respondent No. 3)

The University had, by a resolution dated 1-12-1973, recognized the Sahitya Ratna examination of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag as equivalent to the University's B.A. examination for the limited purpose of admitting candidates to the University's M.A. Previous; thus respondent No. 3 could be treated as a graduate of another university and validly enrolled.
Counsel for respondents argued that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan confers degrees on persons who pass the Sahitya Ratna examination and that such conferral indicates the Sammelan is a "University incorporated by law in India."
Because the Sammelan is a society registered under the Societies Act, it can be treated as a "University incorporated by law in India" and thereby satisfy Section 46(b).
There had been enactments by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature and later by Parliament related to management of the Sammelan; respondents argued that respondent No. 3 passed the Sahitya Ratna during the period these enactments were in force and had not been quashed at that time.
Respondents further contended the petitioner had alternative remedies (e.g., approach the Vice-Chancellor or challenge the election before the Vice-Chancellor) and, having not availed them, should be barred from relief in this Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Smt. Damyanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966	The Supreme Court decision struck down enactments relating to the management of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan; these enactments did not incorporate the Sammelan as a university.	The Court relied on that decision to conclude that the prior enactments concerning the Sammelan merely regulated its management and did not establish the Sammelan as a university incorporated by legislative enactment; therefore the later invalidation of those enactments did not convert the Sammelan into a university for the purposes of Section 46(b).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeds by interpreting the statutory language and examining the documentary and legal status of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in light of Section 46 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.

Interpretation of "university incorporated by law": The Court held that the phrase means a university established and incorporated by an enactment (legislation) made under the legislative competence provided by item 32 of the State List in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. The Court rejected the contention that registration as a society under the Societies Act suffices to make an entity a "university incorporated by law."
Practical and policy reasoning: The Court explained that accepting the respondents' interpretation would allow small groups registering as societies to establish bodies that conduct examinations and issue certificates, and to claim status equivalent to a statutory university with degree-conferring capacity — a result inconsistent with the statutory language and legislative scheme embodied in Section 46.
Evidentiary/legal stance on the Sammelan's status: The respondents did not demonstrate that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was incorporated as a university by any parliamentary or state enactment. The Court therefore found no basis for treating the Sammelan as a "university incorporated by law in India."
Consideration of prior enactments affecting the Sammelan: Respondents relied on earlier state/parliamentary enactments concerning the management of the Sammelan and argued that respondent No. 3 passed the Sahitya Ratna during the operative period of those enactments. The Court found this irrelevant to the primary question because those enactments did not incorporate the Sammelan as a university — they only regulated management and affairs — and were subsequently struck down (citing Smt. Damyanti). Further, the Court noted the legal principle that an enactment struck down as beyond legislative competence is void from inception ("non est"), so it cannot create the status of a university retrospectively.
Alternative remedies: The Court considered but rejected the respondents' contention that the petitioner was barred from relief because he had not pursued remedies before the Vice‑Chancellor. Although acknowledging ordinarily the Court might refuse to entertain such a petition on the ground of alternative remedies, the Court admitted and decided the petition on the merits because the matter involved interpretation of the Adhiniyam and required authoritative determination.
Conclusion from the application of law to facts: Applying the statutory interpretation and the facts (lack of any legislative incorporation of the Sammelan), the Court concluded respondent No. 3 was not entitled to be enrolled as a registered graduate under Section 46 and hence could not validly be elected as a member of the University Court representing registered graduates.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

Petition allowed. The Court ordered deletion of respondent No. 3 (Shri Ramdhani Mishra) from the register of registered graduates of Awadesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa (at serial No. 1827), and quashed his election as a member of the Court of the University.

Direct consequences and orders:

The respondent No. 3's name was directed to be deleted from the University's register of registered graduates at serial No. 1827.
The election of respondent No. 3 as a member of the Court representing registered graduates was quashed as illegal.
There was no order as to costs.
The security amount deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded.

Broader implications (as stated or necessarily confined to the opinion):

The Court affirmed that the phrase "University incorporated by law in India" in Section 46(b) requires legislative incorporation by enactment (i.e., a statutory act of Parliament or State Legislature establishing the university), not mere registration as a society under the Societies Act.
The opinion concluded that enactments regulating the management of an entity do not, unless expressly incorporating it as a university, change the entity's status into a statutory university; and where such enactments are struck down, they cannot be relied upon to confer university status.
No express claim is made in the opinion that a new legal precedent beyond the statutory interpretation was intended to be established; the decision's immediate effect is the removal of respondent No. 3 from the register and the quashing of his election.

This summary is based exclusively on the contents of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Babulal Sharma v. The Vice-Chancellor And Others

1. The petitioner in this case is a registered graduate of Awadesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa. The affairs of the University are governed by the provisions of M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (Act 22 of 1973). By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the registration of respondent No. 3, Shri Ramdhani Mishra, as a registered graduate of the University, and also his election as a member of the Court of the University on the ground that if the respondent No. 3 was not eligible for being registered as a graduate of the University, he could not be elected as a member of the Court representing registered graduates, because such members of the Court could only be from amongst the registered graduates of the University. The ground urged by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 is not eligible as per qualifications prescribed under Section 46 of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 for being enrolled as a registered graduate. For the sake of convenience, Section 46 along with Sub-clauses (a) and (b) are reproduced below :--

"46. The following persons shall, on payment of such fees as may be prescribed by the statutes be entitled to have their names enrolled in the register of registered graduates to be maintained in such forms as may be prescribed by the statutes-

(a) any graduate of the University;

(b) any graduate of at least three years standing of any other University incorporated by law in India and residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the University :

"Provided that a graduate registered as a registered graduate in more than one of the Universities under the enactments repealed under Section 2, shall within a period of six months from the date appointed under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, by a declaration, in such form as may be prescribed by statutes filed before the Registrar of any of the Universities in respect of which he fulfills the conditions laid down in Clause (a) or (b) above exercise his option to be a registered graduate of such University and on exercise of such option he shall cease to be a registered graduate of all the other Universities of which he was a registered graduate before the date aforementioned;

Provided that if any such registered graduate fails to exercise the option under the preceding proviso, he shall, on the expiration of the period of six months from the date appointed under Sub-section (3) of Section 1, cease to be a registered graduate of all the Universities of which he was a registered graduate prior to such date."

2. The petitioner urges that the respondent No. 3 is not a graduate either of the Awadesh Pratap Singh University or of any other university incorporated by law in India, and, therefore, his registration as a graduate is absolutely illegal being in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Act and consequently, his election as a member of the University Court is also illegal. The petitioner has sought the relief of quashing the registration of the respondent No, 3 as a registered graduate and also the election as a member of the Court of the University.

3. On behalf of the respondent No. 1, Vice-Chancellor of the Awadesh Pratap Singh University and respondent No. 2 the Registrar thereof, it has been stated that because the University has vide its resolution dated 1-12-1973 recognised the examination of Sahityaratna held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, as equivalent to the examination of Bachelor of Arts held by this University, the petitioner could be treated as a graduate of other university incorporated by law in India and has, therefore, been validly enrolled as & registered graduate and accordingly his election as a member of the Court is also valid. The resolution passed by the University has been annexed as Annexure R-3-1 and the contents of the same are also included in Annexure R-1 filed by the University and Annexure A filed by the petitioner himself. According to the resolution, it is clear that the University has simply recognised 'Sahitya Ratna Examination' held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, equivalent to B.A. examination of the University and the same was for a limited purpose so as to admit candidates who have passed the Sahitya Ratna examination for M.A. Previous of the Awadesh Pratap Singh University in the same subject in which they have passed the said examination of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that degrees are offered by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, on persons who passed the examination of Sahitya Ratna. According to the learned counsel, conferral of such degree by the Sammelan indicates that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, is a University. The learned counsel for the respondents also urged that since Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag is a society duly registered under the Societies Act, it can be treated as a University incorporated by law in India and thus the requirements of Section 46 (b) of the Madihya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 are fulfilled.

5. We are unable to accept this contention. It is not possible to interpret the language of Section 46 (b) of the Adhiniyam in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents. Incorporation of university by law means establishment and incorporation of university by an enactment relating to the incorporation of the university in exercise of legislative powers in item 32 of the State List in VII Schedule of the Constitution of India. If the interpretation of the learned counsel for the respondents is to be accepted, it will mean that 5 or 10 persons, as may be required initially for forming a society can start the activity of taking examinations and issuing certificates and can claim the status of a university, with powers of conferring degree by merely getting themselves registered as a society for the purposes of imparting education under the Societies Act. This can never be the purpose and meaning of the requirements of the language used in Section 46 of the Adhiniyam when it says that a person qualified to be enrolled as a registered graduate shall be either a graduate of the Awadesh Pratap Singh University or a graduate of any other university incorporated by law in India. On behalf of the respondents, it was not disputed that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag is merely a Society registered under the Societies Act. Nothing could be shown by the respondents so as to substantiate that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, has been incorporated as a university by any enactment either by the Parliament or by any State legislation in India.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents urged that earlier there had been enactments made by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and thereafter by the Parliament regarding the management of the affairs of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag. It was also urged that the respondent No. 3 passed the examination of Sahitya Ratna during the period these enactments were not quashed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, even if their Lordships of the Supreme Court have thereafter struck down the aforesaid enactments, the status of the respondent No. 3 is not affected. This argument is not at all relevant for the main reason that the enactments made by the State Legislature or by the Parliament did not incorporate the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as a university. Those enactments were simply providing for the management of the properties and affairs of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in a particular manner and the Sammelan was being compelled to function in accordance with the provisions of the Act. These enactments were struck down by the Supreme Court and the last decision has been reported in Smt. Damyanti v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 966. Since the aforesaid enactment does not incorporate the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as university, there is no question of considering the effect of their being struck down later on by the Supreme Court. In any case, once a law has been struck down as void being in excess of the competence of the Legislative body, it becomes non est from its very inception and rights cannot be claimed except in the matter of penalty on the ground that during a particular period it was operative as having not been quashed by the superior courts. However, we need not go further into this discussion because in view of the substance of the enactment in question, the argument put forth is absolutely irrelevant.

7. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioner had the remedy of approaching the Vice-Chancellor for getting the enrolment of the respondent No 3 cancelled and he could also file a petition before the Vice-Chancellor for challenging the election of the respondent No. 3 as a member of the Court. The learned counsel urged that since the petitioner had not availed those alternative remedies, he is not entitled to any relief by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has made & representation to the Chancellor of this University and the same was not entertained by the Chancellor on the ground that the subject-matter could be dealt with by the Vice-Chancellor or the Executive Council. This petition was admitted for final hearing and has been heard on merits by us. The decision in the case depends upon the interpretation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. It is a case of enrolment of a person as a registered graduate who is not at all a graduate of the Awadesh Pratap Singh University or any other university incorporated by law in India. Parties have been heard at length with sufficient opportunities to make submissions on the basis of documentary evidence regarding the legal position of Hindi Sahitya Sammalen, Pra-yag. It is true that ordinarily this Court could have refused to entertain this petition but since the basic question of interpretation of the provisions of the M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 was involved, the petition was admitted and has been heard. Under these circumstances, the availability of alternative remedies does not come as a bar for deciding the matter .and granting necessary relief.

8. For the reasons stated above, the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to be enrolled as a registered graduate and accordingly he was also not entitled to be elected as a member of the Court, as a representative of Registered graduates. He contested the election as a representative of the registered graduates and persons who were registered graduates could alone be elected as a member of the Court. As such, to hold that the election of the respondent No. 3 as a member of the Court of Awadesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa was also illegal.

9. We, therefore, direct that a writ be issued directing the deletion of the name of the respondent No. 3 from the registers of registered graduates of Awadesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa at serial No. 1827. We also quash the election of the respondent No. 3 as a member of the Court of the said University.

10. The petition is, therefore, allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.

Babulal Sharma v. The Vice-Chancellor And Others

Structured Summary of the Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments (Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and Respondent No. 3)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Babulal Sharma v. The Vice-Chancellor And Others

Comments