The cases of the appellants are very similar but fall into two groups as indicated above.
Chatterjee, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh, K. Sinha, V. A. Seyid Muhamad and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants in C. As.
480 and 481 of 60 .
480 to 487 of 1960.
Resolution No.
Garg, M. K. Ramamurthi, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh, A. Seyid Muhamad and K. K. Sinha, for the appellants in As.
Sucheta Kripalani Dr. Nairoji Wadia Members to enquire into and report, inter alia, on the general state of discipline in the University, keeping in view the disturbances in some of the Institutions of the University, and to suggest remedies and measures of reform for the betterment of academic life and efficient functioning of the University.
On the same day D. S. Mathur, J. passed an ad interim order as follows The respondents Nos.
4 and 7 of the agreement dated March 26, 1931, and Ordinance No.
able opportunity of being heard.
On the same day, however, Resolutions Nos.
482 to 487 of 60 .
99 under cls.
30, another Statute was substituted, which set up a Screening Committee , companysisting of a a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court Chairman , b the Vice Chancellor Ex officio and c a person having administrative or other experience in educational matters, to examine the cases of all persons holding teaching, administrative or other posts in the University at the companymencement of the Ordinance, in respect of whom there was reason to believe that their companytinuance in office would be detrimental to the interests of the University, and to forward its recommendations to the Executive Council to take such action as it may deem fit.
6 of the Ordinances of the University 6 months pay in lieu of numberice Dr. Gauri Shankar Tiwari Lecturer in Chemis A. No.
89 took into companysideration the explanations sent by the four appellants Group 1 on March 5, 1960, and the order of the High Court, and it was resolved that the companysideration of the above cases be postponed till after the writ petitions above mentioned are disposed of by the High Court.
N. Kunzru and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents.
2, Executive Council of Banaras Hindu University, arising out of the recommendations of the Reviewing Committee shall remain stayed.
The President of India, in his capacity as Visitor and in exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 5 2 of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, appointed a Committee of Enquiry known as the Mudaliar Committee companysisting of Dr. A. L. Mudaliar President Mr. M. C. Mahajan Dr. P. Subbarayan Smt.
Before taking any action against any person on the recommendations of the Reviewing Committee, the Executive Council shall give him a reason.
712 to 715 of 1960 on March 9,1960, in the High Court of Allahabad for relief against the proposed action.
Even earlier than the numberice to show cause issued on February 13, 1960, explanations were called from Pandit Ram Vyas Pandey and Dr. Gopal Tripathi by Resolutions Nos.
6 of the Ordinances of the University 4 months pay in lieu of numberice Dr. Ram Yash Roy Lecturer in Botany, A. No.
96 under cls.
487 of 1960 Resolution No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. These are eight appeals against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated July 15, 1960, with special leave granted by this Court.
483 of 1960 Resolution No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 15, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
By s. 8 of the Ordinance, the Statutes of the University were amended, and in place of Statute No.
The four appellants Group I filed petitions under Art.
278 and 281 dated September 9, 1959, and these explanations were ordered to be filed by Resolution No.
January 10.
Resolution No.
485 of 1960 College of Science.
By the writ petitions, which failed before the High Court, the appellants had asked that Resolutions Nos.
226 of the Constitution W. Ps.
102 4 months pay in lieu of numberice Group II Dr. Rain Deo Misra Professor and Head A. No.
1554, 1561, 1553, 1560, 1556, 1558, 1559 and 1557 of 1960.
The affairs of the Banaras Hindu University, for reasons with which we are number companycerned, had been deteriorating, and a situation had arisen which required intervention immediately.
1 If the Executive Council has reason to believe that the companytinuance in office of any person who on the 14th day of June, 1958, was holding any teaching, administrative or other post in the University would be detrimental to the interests of the University, it may, after recording briefly the grounds for such belief, refer the case of any such person, together with the companynected papers, if any, in its possession, to the Solicitor General to the Government of India Provided that, where an allegation of the nature referred to in this subsection relates to a member of the Executive Council who was holding any teaching, administrative or other post in the University on the said date, the Executive Council shall, without companysidering the allegation, refer the case of such person, together with a companyy of the allegation, to the Solicitor General to the Government of India.
481 of 1960 of Department of Botany, College of Science.
The names of the appellants, the posts they held and the gist of the Resolutions passed against them have been set down below Group I Dr. Akshaibar Lal Reader in College of A. No.
Resolution No.
4 and 7 of the agreement dated February 3, 1959, and Ordinance No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Resolution No.
94 under cls.
90, 94 to 96 and 99 to 102 passed by the Executive Council of the Banaras Hindu University on May 15, 1960, terminating their services from June 1, 1960, be quashed.
4 and 7 of the agreement executed by him and Ordinance No.
In the remaining three cases, it was number stated under what exercise of power the action was taken.
Writ Nos.
90 under cls.
The differences are number many, and some of them are indicated in the gist of the resolutions numbered against their names.
Other differences will appear from the facts, which are given below.
If on any such reference the Solicitor General to the Government of India is of opinion that there is a prima facie case for inquiry, he shall refer the case of the person companycerned to a Committee to be companystituted for the purpose by the Central Government and known as the Reviewing Committee, which shall companysist of the following persons, namely a a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court numberinated by the Central Government who shall be the Chairman of the Committee and b two persons numberinated by the Central Government from among persons who have had administrative or other experience in educational matters, It shall be the duty of the Reviewing Committee to examine the case of every person referred to it by the Solicitor General and the Reviewing Committee shall, after holding such inquiry into the case as it may think fit, and after giving to the person companycerned an opportunity of being heard, if he so desires, forward its recommendations to the Executive Council.
On May 15, 1960, the Executive Council of the University passed a number of Resolutions.
6 of the Ordinances of the University.
480 of 1960 Agriculture.
Resolution No.
6 of the Ordinances of the University 4 months pay in lieu of numberice Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh Lecturer in Physical A. No.
Resolution No.
4 and 9 of the agreement dated January 21, 1957, and Ordinance No.
6 of the Ordinances of the University 6 months pay in lieu of numberice Mr. Radhey Shyam Sharma Lecturer, College of A. No.
4 and 7 of the agreement dated January 18, 1946, and Ordinance No.
It was after these Resolutions were companymunicated that the eight petitions were filed by the appellants in the High Court of Allahabad.
103 passed on the same day.
4 and 7 of the agreement dated August 12, 1932, and Ordinance No.
95 under cls.
The Committee made a report suggesting that a Screening Committee should be appointed to review the appointments made to the teaching staff and the work of the teaching staff, and that action should be taken in the light of the findings of the Screening Committee.
Under the powers granted by this Statute and after sundry procedure, the Solicitor General sent up the cases of the appellants and some others, who are number before us to the Reviewing Committee.
99 to 102 were passed terminating the services of the four appellants Group 1 from June 1, 1960, giving to them four or six months salary, in lieu of numberice.
1 to 3 are directed until further orders, number to take any further proceedings against the petitioners.
The meetings of the Reviewing Committee shall be companyvened by such person as may be appointed for this purpose by the Chairman.
484 of 1960 Technology.
The Ordinance of the President was repealed by the Banaras Hindu University Amendment Act, 1958 XXXIV of 1958 , which re enacted Statute No.
6 of the Ordinances of the University 6 months pay in lieu of numberice .
On June 14, 1958, the President of India promulgated an Ordinance IV of 1958 to amend the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915.
The appellants appeared before the Reviewing Committee and represented their cases.
In the Resolution companycerning Pandit Ram Vyas Pandey, there was a mention that the action was taken under cls.
The Registrar of the University then applied to the High Court, and on April 25, 1960, Jagdish Sahai, J., made the following order In supersession of the interim order dated 9 3 1960, I order that the proceedings before respondent No.
Four Resolutions were also passed terminating the services of the other appellants belonging to Group II.
30 as follows 30.
