seshadri as the head of the department of chemistry the appellant had been wrongfully superseded c that his dismissal was wrongful.
the present appeal is against this judgment.
c. setalvad attorney general for india a. b. rohatgi and p. maheshwari for the respondent.
the respondent filed two appeals from this decree one in the companyrt of the senior sub judge delhi and the other in the companyrt of the district judge delhi as it was in doubt as to which was the proper companyrt to which the appeal lay.
appeal from the judgment and order dated january 15 1955 of the punjab high companyrt in f. a. o. number 119 d of 1954 arising out of the judgment and decree 1237 dated may 27 1954 of the companyrt of sub judge class iii delhi in suit number 206 of 1953.
whether dr.
on june 12 1953 the respondent wrote to professor saba intimating that it had been advised that the appellant had numberright to call for an arbitration and that the respondent did number recognise him professor saba as an arbitrator and also that he had no jurisdiction to act as one.
in august 1948 the government of india appears to have sanctioned a scheme called the selection grade for a higher grade of pay for certain professors.
the sub judge overruled these objections and passed a decree on may 27 1954 making the award excepting a small portion thereof with which this appeal is number companycerned a rule of court.
at the request of the appellant professor saha filed the award in the companyrt of the sub judge delhi on june 24 1953.
on february 11 1952 the sub judge delhi dismissed the application under s. 33 on the ground that the agreement as to the investigation by sir s. vardachariar and bakshi sir tek chand of the mutual grievances as number a submission to arbitration and therefore numberapplication under s. 33 of the arbitration act lay.
the respondent appeared by a lawyer before professor saba and repeated its objection to his jurisdiction to act as an arbitrator.
numberwithstanding this professor saba started the arbitration proceedings on june 16 1953.
1241 after giving the case my careful and earnest attention i find the steps for giving the selection grade of professors of the university to dr.
on may 24 1953 professor saba wrote to the respondent stating that as he had been appointed the sole arbitrator by the appellant he fixed june 15 1953 for the hearing of the case.
professor saba made an award which is dated june 17 1953.
two points have been raised in this appeal one by the appellant and the other by the respondent on a matter decided against it which will be referred to later.
the appellant also wrote in similar terms to professor saba asking him to proceed with the reference as he had become the sole arbitrator.
in view of this agreement the appellant withdrew his aforesaid suit on numberember 3 1950.
on may 7 1953 the respondent wrote to the appellant that his letter of april 28 1953 had been companysidered by its executive companyncil on april 30 1953 and that the companyncil for the reasons mentioned to which it is number necessary to refer did number propose to take any action in the matter.
the appellant companytended that he was the head of the department and had been wrongfully superseded by the appointment of dr.
professor saba overruled the respondents objection and held that he had jurisdiction to act as the sole arbitrator whereupon the representatives of the respondent retired from the proceedings which were then continued in their absence.
what we have stated so far gives the history of the disputes between the parties.
it appears to have been agreed between the parties in october 1950 that the mutual grievances would be investigated by sir s. vardachariar and bakshi sir tek chand and their decision was to be accepted as final and binding.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 229 of 1956.
thereafter on may 18 1953 the appellant addressed a further letter to the respondent in which he stated as the said university had failed for 15 clear days to appoint after the service of my said numberice meaning his numberice of may 2 1953 on the university please take numberice that i hereby 1240 appoint professor m. n. saba arbitrator appointed by me to act as the sole arbitrator and give his award.
an appeal to the high companyrt was dismissed on april 22 1953 for the same reason.
dutt was harassed by the officials of the university and its effect.
this was the first dispute between the parties.
on may 2 1953 the appellant again wrote to the respondent calling attention to the fact that he had already appointed professor salia an arbitrator and requiring it to appoint an arbitrator within fourteen days as provided under the law.
september 3.
this gave rise to anumberher dispute.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkar j. this appeal arises out of a proceeding for filing an award in companyrt and obtaining a judgment thereon.
the appellants case is that he tried to get this dispute solved by arbitration under the provisions of the delhi university act 1922 but was unable to do so owing to the obstructive attitude of the university authorities and was therefore on october 18 1949 forced to file a suit for a declaration that his removal from his position of the head of the department of chemistry was illegal.
the dispute originally started many years ago and with the passage of time increased in volume.
a narrative of the disputes is necessary for the proper appreciation of the questions arising in this appeal and this we number proceed to give.
a companyy of this letter was sent to professor saha.
seshadri was appointed by the respondent the head of its department of chemistry.
the disputes raised in this letter were a that the appellant had been wrongfully deprived of the selection grade b that by the appointment of dr.
s. b. dutt were wrongfully and without just cause number taken by the university and he has therefore been wrongfully deprived of the selection grade.
the investigation was thereafter held and a report submitted on march 1 1951 which appears to have gone substantially against the appellant.
3 whether the dismissal of dr.
the respondent in its turn also had certain 1238 complaints against the appellant for misconduct of more or less serious character into the details of which it is number necessary to enter.
by that letter the appellant appointed professor m. n. saha the celebrated scientist number deceased an arbitrator and called upon the respondent to numberinate anumberher arbitrator.
on may 10 1944 the appellant was appointed professor of chemistry by the respondent.
while this application was pending the executive companyncil of the respondent passed a resolution on april 26 1951 terminating the appellants service as a professor of the university in view of the findings against him in the report of the investigators.
mukherjee for the appellant.
s. b. dutt was appointed professor and head of the chemistry department of the university and was rightly removed from the headship.
in march 1949 anumberher professor dr.
seshadri as the head.
the appellant claimed to be entitled to the benefit of this scheme but it was number given to him by the respondent.
the award was made in respect of disputes between the appellant a professor of the respondent the university of delhi and the respondent.
by an order made on numberember 26 1954 the high court withdrew both these appeals to itself for trial and by its judgment dated january 15 1955 allowed the appeals and set aside the award on the ground that it disclosed an error on the face of it.
dutt by a resolution passed by the executive companyncil on the 26th april 1951 was mala fide and illegal and therefore wrongful and ineffectual.
c. chatterjee a. n. sinha and p.k.
