Untwalia, J.:— The petitioner, Shri Bhola Prasad Singh, Principal, Rajendra College, Chapra, on his application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has obtained a rule from this Court against Professor U.A Goswami, Head of the Department of Mathematics of the said College, respondent 1, Professor I.H Rizvi, Head of the Department of Persian, at present Principal of Millat College, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, respondent 2, Professor Sitanath Jha, Head of the Department of Economics, Rajendra College, respondent 3, the Governing Body of the College, respondent 4, the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur, respondent 5, the Vice-chancellor (respondent 6) and the Chancellor (respondent 7) of the said University, to show cause why the order of the Chancellor dated the 17th of September, 1962 (annexure B to the application) annulling the resolutions of the Syndicate of the Bihar University passed at its meetings held on the 24th June, 1960, and 7th and 8th October, 1961, approving the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College, be not quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.

2. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 by filing a counter-affidavit with annexures and also by placing relevant original records from the office of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the University, copies of some of which, on our direction, were supplied to us at the time of the hearing of the application, and the learned Advocate-General has opposed the application, on their behalf. Respondent 1 also filed a counter-affidavit” and his case was argued by his learned advocate, Mr. B.C Ghosh. Mr. Keshari Kishore Saran appeared at the hearing or the application on behalf of respondent 2 and adopted the argument of the learned Advocate-General. Mr. Hari Kishora Thakur appearing for respondent 3 adopted a neutral attitude, as he put it, and neither supported the petitioner nor opposed his application. Nobody appeared on behalf of the 4th respondent. The petitioner has also filed his replies to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 1 and respondents 5 to 7, on whose behalf further affidavits in reply have also been filed. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application, which I shall be mentioning in this judgment, will be on the basis of the statements made in the petition and the various affidavits as also on the basis of the copies of the original documents supplied to us at the hearing of the application. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1960 the post of the Principal of the College became vacant and the Governing Body decided to fill up the post by promotion from amongst the qualified teachers of the College by a resolution passed in a meeting held on April 25, 1960, and invited applications from the qualified teachers of the College, the minimum qualification being 10 years' teaching experience and second class master's degree. In response to the invitation for applications, the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 applied for the post. The Governing Body authorised Shri U. Vaidyanathan, I.A.S, the then District Magistrate of Saran, and a member of the Governing Body of the College, to scrutinize the claims and comparative merits of all the four teachers who had applied for the post of Principal. He recommended the case of the petitioner and the members of the Governing Body, as a whole, duly considered the claims and merits of the 4 applicants and appointed the petitioner as Principal of the College by a resolution passed at its meeting on the 15th May, 1960.

3. The appointment of the petitioner as Principal was forwarded to the University of Bihar for approval Under Articles 4 and 5 of Chapter XVI of the Bihar University Statute, hereinafter referred to as the Statute. The Syndicate, by a resolution passed at its meeting held on the 24th of June, 1960, approved of the petitioner's appointment. But, in the meantime, according to his case, he had taken over charge as Principal of the College on the 18th of May, 1960. His case further is that on the 30th May, 1960, respondent 1 wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Governing Body for reconsideration of the matter and forwarded a copy of the same to the University. The said representation of respondent 1 was considered by the Governing Body and it was rejected in its meeting held on the 18th May, 1961, when the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College was confirmed under Article 7 of Statute XVI.

4. The petitioner's case further is that on the 18th March, 1961, respondent 1 sent a memorandum to the Vice-Chancellor to consider his case and it was rejected by the latter on the 31st March, 1961. The said order of rejection of the Vice-Chancellor was communicated by the University by a letter dated 44-61. On the 14th June, 1961 respondent 1 again made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor for reconsideration of his case, and it was rejected by the Syndicate in its meeting held on the 7th and 8th October, 1961. The petitioner's case further is that respondent 1 made a representation to the Chancellor and the latter, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and also after considering the report of the University, rejected the representation on 25-6-1962 (it was really on 11-6-1962 but communicated by a letter dated 25-6-1962). But later on, the Chancellor reviewed his previous order, cancelled it and passed the impugned order dated 17th of September, 1962, annulling the resolution of the Syndicate dated the 24th June, 1960, approving the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College and the resolution dated the 7th and 8th October, 1961, rejecting the representation of respondent 1 and reiterating its approval to the appointment of the petitioner as such.

5. Mr. Balbhadra Pd. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner, has challenged the impugned order of the Chancellor on the following grounds:

(i) That the Chancellor's order dated 11-6-1962 was passed under Section 8(4) of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpore and Ranchi) Act, 1960 (Act XIV of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act, and he had no power to review that order and pass a different order on 17-9-1962.

(ii) That approval of the appointment of the petitioner the Syndicate under Article 5 of Statute XVI is not a proceeding of the University and the Chancellor has, therefore, no power to annul it under Section 8(4) of the Act.

(iii) That, even if it is a proceeding, the Chancellor can annul it only when it is ultra vires, i.e, in excess of Jurisdiction of the Syndicate, but not on the ground of any error of judgment.

(iv) That the Chancellor could not do so without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action under Section 8(4) of the Act as the impugned order did affect the right of the petitioner to the post of the Principal of the College specially when he had been confirmed to that post more than a year before the passing of the order.

6. The learned Advocate-General submitted that the Syndicate of the University had not accorded its approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College in conformity with the Statute, various irregularities and illegalities were committed in the process of approval which was a proceeding within the meaning of Section 8(4) of the Act, so it was liable to be annulled by the Chancellor. He further submitted that the order dated the 11th June, 1962, was not the final order and the impugned order dated 17-9-1962 is the first and the final order and is not an order passed on review. The order, according to him, was an administrative one and the petitioner was not entitled to any notice.

7. Mr. B.C Ghosh supplemented the argument of the learned Advocate-General and submitted that the order dated 11-6-1962 was not an order under Section 8(4) of the Act; it was an order by which the Chancellor merely rejected the representations made by Prof. Goswami and the order dated 17-9-1962 was the order passed in exercise of the powers of the Chancellor under the said provision of law. He, in the alternative, supported the impugned order with reference to the provisions of Section 24 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, by characterising it as a purely administrative order and not a judicial or a quasi-judicial order. He further urged that the petitioner is not entitled to ask far a writ in this case as his appointment was made and approved mala fide by the, Governing Body and the University and there was lack of good faith in their action throughout and also because it was illegal inasmuch as the petitioner was allowed to join the post on the 18th of May, 1960, before the approval of the Syndicate on the 24th of June, 1960.

8. As, in my opinion, the first point urged on behalf of the petitioned is well founded and has got to be accepted as correct, I do not consider it necessary to decide any other point urged on his behalf. But the propriety and correctness of the last submission of Mr. Ghosh will have to be considered and decided in order to find out whether there is anything in law disentitling the petitioner to a writ even if he succeeds on the first point.

9. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 is sworn by Suresh Chandra Verma, an assistant in the office of the University of Bihar dealing with the file in question about the appointment of the Principal of the College. In annexure A to the said counter-affidavit are given extracts from the proceeding of the Governing Body of the College at its meeting held on the 25th April, 1960 and the comparative chart of the academic qualifications of teachers who had applied for the post of Principal. The resolution of the Governing Body runs thus:

“Resolved that the appointment of Principal be made by promotion from among the senior teachers of the college and the Secretary be authorised to invite applications for the same.”

10. In the comparative chart are mentioned the respective academic qualifications of the petitioner and respondents 1; to 3. In annexure B to the said counter-affidavit is quoted the resolution of the Governing Body passed at its meeting held on the 15th May, 1960, and it runs thus—

“Considered the applications of Shri I.H Rlzvi, Shri U.A Goswami, Sri B.P Singh and Shri Seeta Nath Jha and after a detailed discussion on the comparative merits of the candidates resolved that Shri B.P Singh be appointed Principal, Shri J.N Mallick dissenting.”

11. The Secretary of the Governing Body sent a letter dated the 9th June, 1960, to the Registrar, Bihar University, Patna (as the headquarters of the University were then located at Patna; later on were shifted to Muzaffarpur) for approval of the appointment. A copy of the said letter is annexure C to the counter-affidavit and reads thus—

“I have to inform you that the Governing Body at it meeting held on 15-5-1960 decided to fill in the post of Principal of the college by promotion. Applications were Invited from the senior members of the staff and the same were considered by the Governing Body at its meeting held on 15-5-1960. The Governing Body resolved to appoint Sri Bhola Pd. Singh, Head of the Department of Chemistry keeping in view his meritorious services rendered to this institution.

The relevant resolution of the G.B meeting held on 15-5-1960 is attached herewith.

I have to request you to take necessary steps for approval.”

12. In paragraph 3(d) of the counter-affidavit, the deponent states—

“That on the 14th June, 1960 the petitioner personally brought the letter, (marked as Enclosure ‘C’) to the university for approval of his appointment and dictated to the deponent the note which was to be put up along with the letter. The Registrar being absent on that day, the Assistant Registrar, Sri H.N Rai who was there, endorsed the note to the Treasurer, Sri Rameshwar Pd. Singh, recommending the proposal contained in the letter to be placed before the Approval Committee. The petitioner thereafter carried the file so endorsed to the Treasurer (Sri Rameshwar Pd. Singh) who was also Chairman of the Approval Committee, and the Treasurer on the same day wrote on the file, ‘I agree’. That a true copy of the aforesaid note is enclosed marked as Enclosure ‘D’;”

13. It is necessary to quote annexure D also, which is to the following effect:

“Subject of the File: Approval of appointment of snri Bhola Pd. Singh, as a Principal of Rajendra College, Chapra.

Opinion and Orders.

P.U.C at pp. 2 to 1 Cor may be seen.

The Secretary, Rajendra College, Chapra, has reported the appointment of Shri Bhola Pd. Singh as Principal for approval. Shri Singh is a Professor in the college and holds a IInd Class M.Sc degree and has now been promoted to the rank of Principal by the G.B after considering the comparative merits of all the senior teachers Including Shri Singh. His is a case of promotion. He fulfils all the necessary conditions laid down in the statutes. Hence under Article 4 (1b and c) of Chapter XVI of our Statutes his appointment may be referred to the Approval Committee. Sd. S.C Verma

14-6-60

Tr. Note above.

The appointment of Shri Bhola Pd. Singn as Principal, Rajendra College may be referred to the Approval committee.

Sd. H.N Rai

14-6-60

I agree.

Sd. R..P. Singh14/6/60 Assistant Registrar.

Treasurer.

14. In paragraph 3(e) of the counter-affidavit, the deponent has stated—

“That on the 24th of June, 1960, the appointment of the petitioner as Principal was approved of by the Approval Committee and Syndicate without having before them the representation of Shree Goswami, opposite party No. 1, dated the 30th May, 1960, and without examining the claim of teachers serving in a lower grade in the college for promotion and rejecting each of them and thus violating the provisions of Article 4(2) of Chapter XVI of the Statutes of the University. It further appears that when Shree Bhola Pd. Singh brought the letter of the Secretary of the Governing Body to the University as stated herein above, the Governing Body had not complied with the requirements of Article 4(2) of Chapter XVI of the Statutes; as in that, it did not submit to the University the informations required by Clauses (a) to (f) of the aforesaid Article. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner, at the time, was a member of both the Approval Committee and the Syndicate.”

15. The last submission of Mr. Ghosh is chiefly made on the strength of the facts stated in paragraph 3(d) and (e) of counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 7 and since I am discussing the relevant facts seriatim, it is necessary to state a few more facts here to appreciate the position. Respondent 1 in paragraph 16 of his counter-affidavit has stated that he had submitted a representation to the Governing Body of the college on 30th May, 1960 under Article 19 of Chapter XVI of the Statutes for reconsideration of the decision in regard to the matter of appointment of the Principal and had also sent a copy of the same to the University under the same provision of the Statutes. A copy of the said representation is annexure A to the said counter-affidavit. His case also is that the Syndicate of the University at its meeting held on 24th June, 1960, approved the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College and did so in utter disregard of Articles 4(1)(b) and 19(2) of Chapter XVI of the Statutes. He further stated that his representation was deliberately withheld from the Syndicate and was never placed before the Approval Committee of the Syndicate by interested persons. The petitioner in his affidavit in reply has stated that he took the letter dated the 9th of June from the Secretary of the Governing Body and handed it over to the Assistant Registrar of the University. Thereafter he took no part in the disposal of the said letter. He has denied the other allegations made against him by S.C Verma, the deponent of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University.

16. The petitioner further states in paragraph 7 of his affidavit in reply:

“That it is incorrect to say that the Syndicate had not before them the representation of Professor Goswami, dated the 30th May, 1960, and that they approved of my appointment as Principal without examining the claims of teachers, serving in the college, for promotion. It is misleading to suggest that the informations required under clauses (a) to (f) of Article 4(2) of Chapter XVI of the Statutes of the University were not before the University at the time the Syndicate gave their approval to my appointment as Principal, inasmuch as all relevant informations regarding the teachers concerned were available to the University Office.”

17. In regard to this matter, I would quote a few lines from the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 31-3-61 passed on the representation dated 13th March, 1961 of respondent 1. The said order is annexure H to the counter-affidavit of the University and reads thus:

“On reading a news-letter published in the Searchlight of the 5th of March, 1961, I wanted to know from the office if any representation had been made by Prof. Goswami of Rajendra College. Thereafter, there was a note by the dealing assistant that Shri Goswami had submitted an advance copy of his representation and the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr. D. Ram, had ordered the same to be placed before the approval committee. It is further said that this advance copy of his representation was submitted to the Assistant Registrar for perusal but what happened thereafter is not known. I ordered a search in the entries of the diary register, but I am told that the diary registers for the months of May and June, 1960 are missing. There is no record whether this advance copy, which is a copy of the petition filed before the Secretary of the Governing Body to reconsider its decision, had been placed before the Approval Committee of the Syndicate. There can be no doubt, however, that the Syndicate at their meeting held on the 24th of June, 1960, approved the appointment of Sri B.P Singh as Principal of Rajendra College. This I find from a letter of the Assistant Registrar, dated the 25th June, 1960, addressed to the Secretary Rajendra College, conveying him the information that the Syndicate in its meeting held on the 24th of June, 1960, approved the appointment of Sri B.P Singh as Principal of the college. A copy of the same was also forwarded to Sri B.P Singh under Memo No. C/20972, dated the 25th June, 1960. In these circumstances, I am afraid, I can do nothing in the matter. Sri Goswami may he Informed accordingly.”

18. This order dated 31-3-1961 was passed by Mr. K.K Banerji, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar University, who later on, in his letter dated 24th November, 1961 (annexure M to the counter-affidavit of the University) to the Secretary to the Chancellor, to which letter I shad have to refer a bit later, stated—

“The advance copy of this representation was sent to the University and the then Vice Chancellor, Dr. D. Ram, had ordered the same to be placed before the Approval Committee. What happened about this advance copy is not known as the Diary Register for the months of May and June, 1960, is missing.. The Syndicate, who had not a copy of this advance copy before it, approved of the appointment of Sri Bhola Pd. Singh as the principal of Rajendra College on the 24th of June, 1960.”

19. On these facts, it is difficult to hold that the appointment of the petitioner as principal of the College was made and approved by the Governing Body and the Syndicate of the University mala fide and in bad faith. Firstly, it is not clear that the representation of respondent 1 was not considered by the Approval Committee. Even assuming it to be so, it is difficult to hold that it was as a result of the petitioner's moving in the matter mala fide or that he had a hand in getting it suppressed. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was then a member of the Approval Committee and the Syndicate. But he has categorically stated in his affidavit in reply that he was not present in the meeting of the Approval Committee held on 24th June, 1960, when his case was considered. It is regrettable that the deponent of the counter-affidavit of the University who himself dealt with the file on the 14th of June, 1960, and gave the note, says or is made to say in the counter-affidavit facts showing the alleged irregularity or illegality in according the approval by the Syndicate, which he did not point out at the relevant time. On the facts as disclosed, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner moved mala fide in the matter from the 14th to the 24th of June; 1960, dictated the note to the dealing assistant S.C Verma, obtained the endorsements of the Assistant Registrar and the Treasurer, induced the Approval Committee consisting of 4 members other than him to accord its sanction and then got it passed by the Syndicate which consisted of as many as 21 members.

20. On the 12th of July, 1960, came into force the Act which repealed the University of Bihar Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXVII of 1951). The steps so far had been taken under the Statutes framed under the said Act, which were continued under the new Act also. The petitioner's appointment as principal of the College was made on probation for one year and he was confirmed in his post by the Governing Body on the 18th of May, 1961, under Article 7 of Chapter XVI of the Statutes, on the expiry of the period of probation. As stated by respondent 1 in paragraph 18 of his affidavit, he submitted a memorial to the Vice-chancellor of University of Bihar on the 18th March, 1951, a copy whereof is annexure B to the counter-affidavit, and the Vice-Chancellor disposed of the said memorial by his order dated 31-3-1961 (annexure C to the counter-affidavit of respondent 1 and annexure H to the counter-affidavit of the University, a major portion of which has been extracted above). The said order was communicated to respondent 1 by the Special Officer of the University in his letter dated 4th April, 1961 (annexure C-1 to the counter-affidavit of respondent 1). Respondent 1, thereafter, as stated by him in paragraph 21 of his counter-affidavit, made a representation to the Chancellor on 21st April, 1961 but he was asked by the Assistant Secretary to the Chancellor in his letter dated 4th May, 1961 that as University Bodies had already been constituted, the matter might be taken up with the Vice-Chancellor, Bihar University, who was competent authority in the matter.

21. Thereupon respondent 1 made a fresh representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 14th June, 1961 and the latter directed it to be placed before the Syndicate at its meeting to be held on the 4th August, 1961. But this was not disposed of in that meeting of the Syndicate or in the subsequent meetings held in the months of August and September. Hence respondent 1 made two successive representations to the Chancellor on the 4th September, 1961, and 2nd October, 1961, copies of which representations, are annexures G and H to his counter-affidavit and are referred to in paragraph 28. Eventually, the Syndicate-took up the matter at its meeting held on the 7th end 8th of October, 1961 and passed the following resolution-., (vide annexure L to the counter-affidavit of the University)

“It was pointed out that Sri B.P Singh was appointed as the Principal of the Rajendra College, Chapra, by the. Governing Body of that College and this was approved by the Syndicate of the old Bihar University on the 24th June, 1960. Thereafter, Sri Goswami put in another representation before the Vice-Chancellor, which was considered and rejected on the 31st March, 1961. As at this time the Vice-Chancellor was discharging the functions of the Syndicate as well as of the Senate, this, means that the Syndicate rejected the representation of Shri Goswami and, therefore, the matter cannot be opened now. This view-was accepted by the members of the Syndicate. Sri Goswami said that he did not agree to this interpretation.”

22. On the representations of respondent 1, the Chancellor called for a report from the Vice-Chancellor by-letter dated 21st November, 1961, and in reply to the-said letter the Vice-Chancellor sent the letter dated the 24th November, 1961 (annexure M to the counter-affidavit of the University). A portion of this letter has been quoted by me earlier, but I have to quote the letter in full at this stage—

“With reference to your letter No. BU-72/61-3639 G.S (i), dated the 21st November, 1961, I have to make the following comments on the representation of Prof. U.A Goswami of Rajendra College, Chapra.

The salient facts of this case are that the Governing-Body of the Rajendra College appointed Sri Bhola Pd. Singh as the Principal of the College subject to the approval of the Syndicate on the 30th of May, 1960. Before the matter was considered by the Syndicate, Prof. Goswami made a representation to the Secretary of the Governing-Body for reconsideration of the decision and sent a copy of the representation to the Registrar, Bihar University, under Article 19 of Chapter XVI of the old Bihar University Statutes. The advance copy of this representation was sent to the University and the then Vice-Chancellor, Dr. D. Ram, had ordered the same to be placed before the? Approval Committee. What happened about this advance copy is not known as the Diary Register for the months of May and June, 1960 is missing. The Syndicate, who? had not a copy of this advance copy before It, approved of the appointment of Shri Bhola Pd. Singh as the Principal of Rajendra College on the 24th of June, 1960. A year later, at the time of confirmation, the Same Governing Body confirmed Sri Bhola Pd. Singh in his post as the Principal, Rajendra College. I understand that the representation made by Sri Goswami before the Governing Body against the appointment of Sri Bhola Pd. Singh was rejected. The question, therefore, is whether the appointment-and the confirmation of Sri Bhola Pd. Singh has been rendered invalid on account of the advance copy of representation of Prof. Goswami not having been placed before-the Syndicate at the time when this University Body approved of the appointment. Although, there is an irregularity in the sense that the Syndicate on 24th of June, 1960, gave its decision without the opinion of the Governing Body on the representation of Prof. Goswami, it is ??? for me in the circumstances of the case to express view that the entire appointment has been rendered void on the merits, it appears that the Governing Body, on consideration of the representation of Prof. Goswami, did not revise their decision. A year later, although they were aware of the points made out in the representation of Sri Goswami, they stuck to their previous decision and confirmed Sri Bhola Pd. Singh as the Principal. The Syndicate again considered the whole situation and has ultimately come to the decision to the effect that the appointment of Sri Bhola Pd. Singh was quite proper. In my opinion, therefore, it is difficult to reopen the matter at this stage.”

23. On receipt of the said letter, further correspondence ensued and eventually the letter dated the 23rd April, 1962, was written by the Secretary to the Chancellor to the Vice-chancellor (annexure N to the counter-affidavit of respondents 5 to 7). In order to decide the nature of the order which was eventually passed on the 11th June, 1962, it is necessary to quote this letter in full—

“With reference to the correspondence resting with your Registrar's letter No. B/9433, dated the 13th March, 1962, I am directed by the Chancellor to invite a reference to Article S. of Chapter XVI of the Statutes framed under the University of Bihar Act, 1951 and in force under the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 which provides that on receipt of proposal from the Governing Body of a College for approval of appointment of teachers, the Syndicate shall after due consideration and enquiry, if any, communicate its approval or disapproval of the appointment as the case may be to the Governing Body. But the resolution is the Syndicate of the University of Bihar passed at its meeting held on the 24th June, 1960 does not show compliance of the provisions of the above Article of the Statute inasmuch as the representation of Shri U.A Goswami was not given due consideration by the Syndicate before confirming the appointment of Shri B.P Singh as Principal tsf Rajendra College, Chapra. The said resolution of the Syndicate is therefore not in conformity with the laws of the University and is accordingly liable to be annulled under Section 8(4) of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960 as amended by the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Second Amendment) Act, 1961. I am, therefore, to request you to kindly show cause by the 30th April, 1962 why the aforesaid resolution of the Syndicate should not be quashed by the Chancellor in exercise of the power under Section 8(4) of the Art.”

24. In reply to this show cause notice issued by the Chancellor under the proviso to Section 8(4) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor stated in his letter dated the 14th May, 1962 (annexure C)—

“In reply to your letter No. BU-21/61-1574-G.S. (I), dated the 23rd of April, 1962, on the above subject, I have to inform you that the matter was placed before the meeting of Advisory Board on the 9th of May, 1962, where it was decided that the Vice-Chancellor should show cause as asked by the Chancallor.

I am, therefore to say that I have nothing to add further to what has been stated in my Confidential letter No. 34.R, dated the 24th of November, 1961.”

25. Upon this, the following order was passed by the Chancellor on the 11th June, 1962, which is quoted in paragraph 3(s) of the counter-affidavit of the University—

“It is clear from the records that Prof. Goswami's representation was not before the Syndicate when they were considering the appointment of the Principal. They had only the recommendation of the Governing Body. It is not known what decision they would have taken if Prof. Goswami's letter was also before them. Prof. Goswami is admittedly the senior-most in view of the fact that the man just prior to him in seniority left the College.

When the matter was brought up, Prof. Goswami's application was once again sent for the consideration by the Syndicate and they confirmed their previous decision. In the matter of appointment to principalship seniority is not the only criterion. Therefore, 1 consider that on the merits Prof. Goswami has no case. The existing appointment will stand.

However, as the present Principal, Shri B.P Singh has not yet been confirmed or made permanent and the new Syndicate will shortly be constituted, the claim of Prof. Goswami may be considered by that Syndicate before the appointment of Sri B.P Singh is made permanent or he is confirmed.”

26. I shall now quote Section 8(4) of the Act, which provides—

“The Chancellor may, by order in writing, annul any proceeding of the University which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances or the Regulations:

Provided that, before making any such order, he shall call upon the University to show cause within the time specified by him why such an order should not be made, and if any cause is shown, he shall consider the same.”

27. In the background of the history of the case and the various steps which were taken in connection with the representation of respondent 1, it is manifest that the Chancellor's order dated 11-6-1962 was a final order refusing to annul the proceeding of the University in regard to the appointment of the Principal of the College. I find no substance either in the argument of the learned Advocate-General that it was not a final order under Section 8(4) of the Act in view of the last paragraph of the order or in the contention of Mr. B.C Ghosh that it was an order merely rejecting the representation of respondent 1. It is obvious that the final order is contained in the second paragraph and the last paragraph was embodied in the order under some misapprehension, as in the letter dated 24-11-1961 of the Vice-Chancellor quoted above, it has been specifically mentioned that

‘A year later, at the time of confirmation, the same Governing Body confirmed Shri Bhola Pd. Singh in his post as the Principal, Rajendra College’.

28. After the order dated 11-6-1962 had been passed by the Chancellor, his office noted on the file (copy of which was given to us at the time of the hearing of “the application)—

“With reference to Chancellor's orders in the concluding para, it may be humbly submitted that Shri B.P Singh has already been confirmed by the Governing Body of Rajendra College, Chapra as Principal in May, 1961 vide V.C's statement at flag ‘33’ at ‘B’ and report of the Secretary of the College at flag 34 at ‘A’. It may also be respectfully pointed out that there is no provision in the statutes under which the case of a teacher of an affiliated College may be referred to the Syndicate for approval at the time of confirmation.

If approved, the contents of the last para of Chancellor's orders may not be incorporated in our letter. A draft in anticipation of orders is placed below for approval. Submitted.

D.F.A”

29. One Mr. A.C Mukherji thereafter noted on the file—

“D.F.A which may issue after Chancellor has seen, since it is proposed not to include last para of Chancellor's minute on preceding page.”,

30. And the Secretary thereafter forwarded the file to the Chancellor who passed the order on 24-6-1962 to the effect—

“The Draft is approved.”

31. It is in pursuance of this final approval of the draft which, in my opinion, in substance, had the effect of ignoring the last paragraph of the order of 11-6-1962, a letter dated 25th June, 1962, was written by the Secretary of the Chancellor to the Vice-Chancellor of the Bihar University (annexure P. to the counter-affidavit). The said letter runs thus—

“With reference to the correspondence resting with your D.O No. 1424.Vc, dated the 17th May, 1962, on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Chancellor has considered the representation of Prof. U.A Goswami and sees no reason to annul the proceedings of tfca Syndicate of the Bihar University approving the resolution of the Governing Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra regarding the appointment of Shri B.P Singh as Principal of the College. The representation of Prof. Goswami is therefore, rejected and he may be informed accordingly.”

32. It is thus clear that whatever anomaly or mistake crept in the order of 11-6-1962 because of the observation in the last paragraph of the order was finally removed or rectified by communicating the definite order of the Chancellor in the letter dated 25-6-1962 that he saw no reason to annul the proceedings of the Syndicate of the Bihar University approving the resolution of the Governing Body of the Rajendra College, Chapra, regarding the appointment of Shri B.P Singh as Principal of the College. I may also add here that the learned Advocate-General conceded and, in my opinion, rightly that confirmation of the appointment by the Governing Body under Article 7 of Statute XVI, did not require any fresh approval of the Syndicate.

33. How the matter was raked up or reopened can better be stated by quoting paragraph 3(t) of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 to 7. Therein, it is said—

“That a letter dated the 24th June, 1962 by way of reminder from Sri Goswami, the opposite party No. 1, was received by the Chancellor on the 29th June, 1962, who on the 23rd July, 1962, ordered that the last paragraph of his order dated the 11th June, C1962 should also be communicated. Then the office pointed out that as the matter of confirmation of appointment of teachers (including Principals) made by the Governing Bodies of affiliated colleges of the University were not to come before the Syndicate for approval, the last paragraph of the Chancellor's order might not he communicated. The Chancellor did not accept the suggestion and called for a discussion on the subject;”

34. Thereafter, as stated in paragraph 3(u), a ‘memorandum was prepared by the office to place before the Chancellor, recapitulating the history of the case in detail, and noting the points for discussion’. It is not necessary for me to examine the propriety or correctness of the points made out by the Chancellor's office for discussion in annexure Q to the counter-affidavit as I shall assume in, favour of the contesting respondents (although I am very doubtful about it) that a proper case had been made out for review of the order dated 11th June, 1962, resulting in the impugned order dated 17th September, 1962, being passed by the Chancellor. The question of importance which falls to be decided is as to whether the Chancellor under the Act or otherwise has any power to review his final order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act. Before I proceed to discuss the question of law, I would quote the impugned order in full, the language of which leaves no room in my mind for any doubt that the very same materials which had been considered at the time of the passing of the order dated 11th of June, 1962 were considered afresh, an entirely different conclusion was drawn and a completely different order was passed on the 17th of September, 1962. It runs thus:

“Read: Letters No. 34.R, dated the 24th November, 1961, from the Vice-Chancellor, University of Bihar; No. B/9433, dated the 13th March, 1962, from the Registrar, University of Bihar, and No. B/14294, dated the 14th May, 1962, from the Vice-Chancellor, University of Bihar, addressed to the Secretary to the Governor.”

35. Order: Having considered the explanations furnished by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar, University of Bihar, in relation to the provisions of clauses (1)(b) and (2) of Article 4 of Chapter XVI of the Statutes framed under the University of Bihar Act, 1951, and applicable under the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960, I, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 8(4) of the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) Act, 1960, as amended by the Bihar State Universities (Patna, University of Bihar, Bhagalpur and Ranchi) (Second Amendment) Act, 1961 hereby order that the following resolution of the Syndicate of the University of Bihar be annulled:

‘Resolutions of the Syndicate passed at its meetings held on the 24th June, 1960, and on the 7th/8th October, 1961, approving the appointment of Shri Bhola Prasad Singh as Principal of the Rajendra College, Chapra’.

2. This cancels letter No. BU-21/62-2573 G.S (i), dated the 25th June, 1962, from the Secretary to the Governor to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Bihar.

3. A copy of this be forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor, University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur, for necessary action.”

36. The Chancellor under Section 7 of the Act is an officer of the University and under Section 8 the Governor of Bihar is the Chancellor of the University of Bihar and, by virtue of his office, is the head of the University end the President of the Senate. It is, therefore, no doubt, true that he is the highest officer of the University, but he cannot exercise his powers under the Act in an arbitrary manner and review and alter his orders unless such power is found conferred upon him under the Act or the Statute. The power of the Chancellor under Section 8(4) of the Act, in my opinion, is a power of a quasi-judicial nature. The ground on which he can exercise such power is conditioned by the provision itself. Furthermore, it is obligatory to issue a show cause notice to the University as to why an order annulling a proceeding of the University be not made and on such cause being shown, he is bound to consider it. In appropriate cases, it may well be that by his proposed action he is affecting the rights of persons other than the University and on the principles of natural justice, as laid down by a Bench of this Court, to which my Lord the Chief Justice was a party, in Nazma Khatoon v. Custodian, Evacuee Properties, Bihar*, Bihar, ILR 32 Pat 630 : (AIR 1954 Pat 43), the party against whom a judgment or order is to operate should have an opportunity of being heard and a breach of this rule affects the jurisdiction of the Court or tribunal which passes the final order.

37. In the instant case, as I have shown above on the representation of respondent 1 a show cause notice was issued to the University and, after considering the show cause filed by it, the Chancellor passed the final order on the 11th of June, 1962, and by the 24th June, 1962, it had also been specifically brought to his notice that the petitioner's appointment as Principal of the College had been confirmed and that there was no provision in the Statutes, under which the case of a teacher of an affiliated College is required to be referred to the Syndicate for approval at the time of confirmation. In spite of these facts, about a month later, the matter was proposed to be taken up again, was so taken up and the impugned order was passed without any notice, as it appears, either to the University or to the petitioner.

38. In the Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222, it has been held—

“……. that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudically affect the subject, then, although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially.

In other words, while the presence of two parties besides the deciding authority will prima facie and in the absence of any other factor impose upon the authority the duty to act judicially, the absence of two such parties is not decisive in taking the act of the authority out of the category of quasi-judicial act if the authority is nevertheless required by the statute to act judicially.”

39. The said observations have been quoted with approval in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110, where it has been further observed—

“Now it may be mentioned that the statute is not likely to provide in so many words that the authority passing the order is required to act judicially; that can only be inferred from the express provisions of the statute in the first instance in each case and no one circumstance alone will be determinative of the question whether the authority set up by the statute has the, duty to act judicially or not. The inference whether the authority acting under a statute where it is silent has the duty to act judicially will depend on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statute. A duty to act judicially may arise in widely different circumstances which it will be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define exhaustively.”

40. Even if it be assumed that the power of the Chancellor under Section 8(4) of the Act is of an administrative nature, it is abundantly clear that it has to be exercised judicially within the ambit of the Act and according to the well established principles of law. It is of the highest importance for the working of the democracy under the rule of law that uncontrolled and arbitrary powers cannot, be presumed to have been granted to any authority outside the limits of law. I am of the view that the impugned order of the Chancellor is ultra vires, without jurisdiction and null and void.

41. In Drew v. Willis, (1891) 1 QB 450, Lord Esher, M.R, has pointed out that ‘no court’ (and I would add ‘no authority’) ‘has …… a power of setting aside an order which has been properly made, unless it is given by statute’, in Hession v. Jones, (1914) 2 K.B 421, Bankes, J., after pointing out that the Court under the statute has no power ‘to review an order deliberately made after argument and to entertain a fresh argument upon it with a view to ultimately confirming or reversing it’, has further observed—

“Then as to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court; Before the Judicature Acts the Courts of common law had up jurisdiction whatever to set aside an order which had been made. The Court of Chancery did exercise a certain limited power in this direction. All Courts would have power to make a necessary correction if the order as drawn up did not express the intention of the Court; the Court of Chancery however went somewhat further than that, and would in a proper case recall any decree or order before it was passed and entered; but after it had been drawn up and perfected no Court or Judge had any power to interfere with it. That is clear from the judgment of Thesiger, L.J in the case of In re St. Nazaire Co., (1879) 12 Ch D 88.”

42. In David Nadar v. Nanikka Vachaka Desika Gnana Sambanda. ILR 33 Mad 65, it has been held, to quote the placltum, that—

“The Collector has no power to review his own order refusing to interfere with an order passed by his subordinate, confirming a sale for arrears of land revenue.”

43. In Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hegade, AIR 1919 Mad 244, Seshagiri Aiyar, J., as a member of the Division Bench deciding the case, has said—

“It is settled law that a case is not open to appeal unless the statute gives such a right. The power to review must also be given try the statute. Prima facie a party who has obtained a decision is entitled to keep it unassailed, unless the legislature has indicated the mode by which it can be set aside. A review is practically the hearing of an appeal by the same officer who decided the case. There is at least as good reason for saying that such power should not be exercised unless the statute gives it, as for saying that another tribunal should not hear an appeal from the Trial Court unless such a power is given to it by statute.”

44. The facts of the case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Baijnath Ram Goenka v. Nand Kumar Singh, 40 Ind App 54, are that a mahal in which the respondent was a co-sharer was sold for arrears of revenue. Two appeals to annul the sale were preferred to the Commissioner under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859, Section 33, as amended by the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1858. One of these appeals was by the respondent, and was dismissed on the ground that the auction purchaser had not been made a defendant. The second appeal was by other co-sharers in the mahal, and in this appeal the Commissioner, on March 23, 1900, made an order annulling the sale on the ground of an irregularity in the sale notice. This order referred to the entire mahal. On June 21, 1900, the Commissioner having come to the conclusion that his order of March 23, 1900, was wrong in law, reviewed it and made an order upholding the sale. The respondent thereupon commenced the suit giving rise to the appeal in the Privy Council praying for a declaration that the order of June 21, 1900, was ultra vires and illegal. The Additional Subordinate Judge declared that the order setting aside the sale was a final order and was not open to review. The High Court affirmed this decision. While dis missing the appeal of the defendant appellant, Lord Atkinson said—

“Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the order of March 23, 1900, was final and conclusive, and that, so far as the Commissioner was concerned, he had no power to review that order in the way in which he has reviewed it.”

45. In Rameshwar Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1959 BLJR 450 : (AIR 1960 Pat 6), Kanhaiya Singh, J., sitting in Division Bench with my Lord the Chief Justice, has pointed out—

“No authority or, for the matter of that, Court can claim by implication a power to revise its own order. It is purely a question of statute, and in absence of any provision empowering any authority or Court to review its own order, there cannot be a valid review of the order.”

46. Sinha, C.J, in the Supreme Court case of State of Bihar v. Ram Dayal Missir, 1962 BLJR 385, has said—

“It must, therefore, be held that neither in express terms nor as officers discharging quasi-judicial functions have the Settlement or the Assistant Settlement Officers the power to review their orders, except by way of correction of accidental mistakes, under the inherent power of an officer, who has the duty to perform judicial functions.”

47. No authority taking a contrary view was cited by either the Advocate-General or Mr. B.C Ghosh — rather, the former did not combat the proposition of law in regard to the Chancellor's power of review as expressed by me above; the latter, however, submitted that he has such power to amend or rescind his order under Section 24 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act. The said section provides—

“Where, by any Bihar and Orissa Act or Bihar Act, a power to make or issue notifications, orders, schemes rules, by-laws or forms, is conferred, then that power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any) to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notification, orders, schemes rules, by-laws or forms so made or issued.”

48. Sections 23 to 27 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act correspond respectively to Sections 20 to 24 of the General Clauses Act (Central Act 10 of 1897) and are under the heading ‘Provisions as to Orders, Rules, Etc., made under Enactments’. Reading Section 24, by itself or in the context of the other sections under the said heading, it is clear that the power to make or issue orders spoken of in the said section is of a legislative nature and not of a judicial nature as the order passed under Section 8(4) of the Act is. The expression ‘to make or issue orders’ has got to be read ejusdem generis and, when so read, it is manifest that the ‘orders’ spoken of in Section 24 of the Act are orders made or issued in exercise of the power of a kind of subordinate legislation conferred by any Act, to wit, the various Control Orders made under the Defence of India Act within the meaning of Section 21 of the Central Act. The power under Section 8(4) of the Act is exercisable ‘by order in writing’, but is not a power ‘to make an order’ within the meaning of the said provision of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act. If that were not so, all authorities and Courts will derive their power to add to, amend, vary or rescind any order — judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative — of the like nature at any time or any number of times they chose to exercise it. I have, therefore, no difficulty in rejecting the argument put forward by Mr. B.C Ghosh.

49. I have, earlier in my judgment, dealt with the argument of Mr. Ghosh as to whether the petitioner is disentitled to a writ in this case because of the actions of the Governing Body of the College and the University being allegedly mala fide and rejected this argument for the reasons stated above. Then comes his another submission in that regard that the petitioner is not entitled to the writ prayed for because he was allowed to join as Principal of the College on the 18th May, 1960 against the provisions of Article 5 of Statute XVI which says—

“The Syndicate shall, after due consideration and enquiry, if any, communicate its approval or disapproval of any or all such appointments to the Secretary concerned, ordinarily within a month of the receipt of the information. No teacher shall be allowed to join his substantive post unless his appointment has been previously approved by the Syndicate.”

50. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Bench in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of Nalanda College, M.J.C No. 404 of 1961, D/- 19-7-1961 (Pat), and the decision of the Supreme Court in the same case reported in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College, (1962) 2 SCJ 208 : (AIR 1962 SC 1210).

51. In the decision of the High Court, while referring to the provisions of Article 5, it was pointed out that the petitioner of that case was wrongly allowed to join the post of Principal without the previous approval of the Syndicate and hence, in the eye of law, he was not validly appointed Principal of the college as his appointment made by the Governing Body could not be said to be complete and final without the approval of the Syndicate. But that was a case where the petitioner's appointment was not ever approved by the Syndicate while in the instant case it is clear that although the petitioner was allowed to function as Principal of the College on and from the 18th of May, 1960, his appointment did receive the approval of the Syndicate on the 24th of June, 1960. In the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur, M.J.C No. 404 of 1961, D/- 19-7-1961 (Pat), I have also observed that, in the eye of law, the petitioner without the approval of the Syndicate was merely performing the duties of Principal until another appointment was made by the Governing Body, which was finally approved by the Syndicate. I may observe that it was wrong on the part of the Governing Body, to allow the petitioner to join the post of Principal without the previous approval of the Syndicate but, since the required approval under Article 5 was accorded in about a month's time, the appointment itself cannot be held to be illegal because of such irregularity. In my opinion, the writ cannot be refused to the petitioner on the grounds submitted by Mr. Ghosh. In the result, I allow the application and grant a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Chancellor of the University of Bihar dated 17th of September, 1962, said in paragraph 3(v) of the counter-affidavit filed on his behalf to be the order of 5th September, 1962, communicated to the University by memo No. 4229 G.S (I) dated the 17th/18th September, 1962, contained in annexure B to the writ application and annexure R to the said counter-affidavit. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as to cost.

Ramaswami, C.J:— I agree.

CG/D.H.Z

52. Petition allowed.