http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: RAM PAL CHATURVEDI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/09/1969

BENCH:

ACT: University  of Rajasthan---Medical Colleges--Appointment  of Principal  Teaching qualification  laid down  in   Ordinance No.  65 made by Senate of University under powers  given  by University  of  Rajputana  Act  1946---Such   qualifications relaxed  retrospectively by proviso to R. 30(4)    Rajasthan Medical  Service  (Collegiate Branch) Rules,  1962  made  by Governor  of  Rajasthan under Art. 309  of  Constitution  of India,   1950-Rule   30(4)   or  Ordinance   65   which   to prevail--Ordinance 65 whether a provision made under an  Act within the meaning of Art. 309--Rule 30(4) Collegiate  Rules whether mala fide.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellant filed writ petitions in the  High   Court of  Rajasthan challenging the appointment of the  Principals of  three Medical Colleges affiliated to the  University  of Rajasthan  on the ground that the persons appointed did  not have  the teaching experience necessary for ,these posts  as laid  down  in  Ordinance No.65 made by the  Senate  of  the University under the University of Rajputana Act, 1946.  The appointments   were defended on the basis of the proviso  to sub-r.  (4)  of  R  30  of  the  Rajasthan  Medical  Service (Collegiate  Branch)  Rules, 1962 made by  the  Governor  of Rajasthan  under Art. 309 of the Constitution.   Suh-r.  (4) was  added  to R. 30 of the, Collegiate  Branch  Rules  with retrospective effect during the pendency of the  appellant’s writ  petitions.  and  provided  that  two   years’  service rendered   in  lathe  speciality  would  be   reckoned    as equivalent  to one year’s teaching experience.  In  view  of this  sub-rule   the High  Court dismissed  the  appellant’s writ  petitions.  In appeals to this Court by ocruficate  it was contended on behalf of the appellants that (i) Ordinance No. 65 must prevail over R. 30(4) in the matter of  teaching experience required; (ii) the retrospective amendment of  R. 30  by the addition of Sub-Jr. (4) was mala fide; (iii)  the provision in Ordinance 65 as regards teaching experience was mandatory. HELD: Dismissing the appeals,      The  contention  that the proviso to  sub-r.  (4)  must yield   to  the  Ordinance  could  not  be  accepted.    The Collegiate  Branch  Rules having been made pursuant  to  the power  under Art.  309  of  the  Constitution must be  given full effect subject to the provisions of any Act made by the appropriate  Legislature  regulating  the  recruitment   and conditions of service of persons appointed to the  Rajasthan Medical  Service  (Collegiate  Branch). Such  Act  need  not specifically deal with the State Medical Service but it must be  an  Act as contemplated by Art. 309 by  or  under  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

provision is made regulating the recruitment and  conditions of service taking within its fold the said Medical services. [564 D-E]     Ordinance 65 made under the University of Rajputana  Act and  dealing inter alia with "emoluments and conditions   of service   of University teachers" was not a provision  under an Act regulating the recruitment and conditions of  service of  persons  appointed  to  Rajasthan  Medical  Service   as contemplated   by  Art.  309’  of  the  Constitution.    The University  of  Rajputana Act falls under Entry 11  List  II which deal’s with the  subject 560 education  including  universities’ and not under  entry  41 List II dealing with ’State Public services’.  The field  of operation of the Ordinance is restricted to the question  of affiliation  of  the Colleges concerned with  the  Rajasthan University.’ If there is any violation of a provision of the Ordinance,  then  that  may  appropriately  be  taken   into account   by   the Rajasthan University for the  purpose  of withdrawing  or  refusing  to continue  affiliation  of  the colleges in question.  No such action had been taken by  the University  in  the present case.   The  personsl  appointed could  not  be  said  to  be  holding  their  posts  without authority  of law.  The appellant had no right to  challenge their appointments. [564 G, 565 D]     (ii) The plea of mala fide was unsustainable.  There was noting  to  show  that r. 30(4) was made  for  a  collateral purpose  in  colourable exercise of the rule  making  power. [565 F]     [In view of the above findings no opinion was  expressed on the question whether the powers of Ordinance No. 65  were mandatory].

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.  1818  to 1820 of 1968.     Appeals  from the judgment and order dated  January  22, 1968  of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil  Misc.  Writ Nos. 599 of 1966, 100 and 94 of 1967 respectively.     H.R.  Gokhale, D.P. Gupta  and  B.R. Agarwala, ,for  the appellants (in all the appeals).     G.C.   Kasliwal,  Advacate-General,   Rajasthan,   Vijay Krishna  Makhija,  I.  M.  Bhardwaj  and  K.B.  Mehta,   for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 (in all the appeals). K.B.  Mehta,  for  respondents  Nos. 2 and  4  (in  all  the appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Dug J. These three appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 1818-1819 and 1820 of 1968) with certificate of  fitness  presented by Dr.  Ram  Pal  Chaturvedi  are  directed  against  a  common judgment  of  the Rajasthan High Court and  as  they,  raise common   questions,  they  are being disposed   of  by  one: judgment.   Civil Appeal No. 1818 of 1968 is concerned  with the  challenge  to  the  appointment of  Dr.  D.G.  Ojha  as Principal of  Sardar  Patel  Medical-’ College, Bikaner.  He was  appointed  a  Professor  of  Surgery  and   Officiating Principal of the said College on March 2, 1964.  At the time of  his  appointment, he was officiating  as   Director   of Medical  and  Health Services, Rajasthan at  Jaipur.   Civil Appeal  No. 1819 of 1968 is concerned with the challenge  to the  appointment  of  Dr. P.D. Matbur on July  13,  1965  as Professor  of Surgery and Officiating Principal of  Rabindra Nath  Tagore  Medical  College,  Udaipur.   This  order   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

appointment was  subsequently superseded and Dr. Mathur  was appointed as Professor of Surgery and Principal of  Rabindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udai- 561 pur with effect from the date of his, taking over charge. It may  be  pointed  out that Dr.  Mathur’s  appointment  as  a professor  of Surgery was not challenged either in the  High Court  or before us and his appointment as  Principal  alone was  assailed  in   this  Court Civil  Appeal  No.  1820  is concerned  with  the challenge  to  the appointment  of  Dr. Rishi  dated July 28, 1966 as Principal of Medical  College, Jodhpur.   The appointment was made on  a  purely  temporary and ad hoc basis till further orders. On December 31,  1966, this  order was partially modified in so far as Dr.  Rishi’s remuneration is concerned, but his appointment as  Professor of  Surgery and Principal of Medical College was  reaffirmed to be on a purely temporary and ad hoc basis.  The challenge to  these  three  appointments by means  of  writ  petitions failed in  the Rajasthan High Court and the present  appeals are directed against the common order of that Court.  In the High  Court, it was common ground between the  parties  that Dr.  Ojha,  Dr. Rishi and Dr. Matbur  did  possess  academic qualifications  prescribed  by  the University Ordinance and it  was also not disputed there that these  respondents  had acquired  the qualifications  prescribed by  Rule  30(4)  of the  Rajasthan Medical Service  (Collegiate  Branch)  Rules, 1962  (hereafter  called the Collegiate Branch  Rules).  The High   Court  made  the  following  observations   in    the impugned order :--                   "We  would,  however,  observe  that  Rule               30(4)  empowers the State Government  to  make               only  a temporary’ or officiating  appointment               and  the  appointments of Dr.  Ojha,  and  Dr.               Rishi  will  be  deemed  to  be  temporary  or               officiating  even though these words  may  not               have   been  used  in  the  orders  of   their               appointments   as   Professors   of   Surgery.               Learned  Advocate  General has  also  conceded               that  the  Government  cannot  make  permanent               appointments  under R. 30(4) and the  omission               of  the words ’temporary’ or ’officiating’  in               the  orders was by mistake. It is,  therefore,               not necessary to pursue the matter any further               as these appointments will be considered  only               as temporary or officiating." These  observations  deserve  to be  borne  in  mind   while dealing  with the present appeals.  The High  Court  further took  the view that the qualifications relating to  teaching experience  were directory and not mandatory and in view  of the  fact  that  the University was  not  objecting  to  the impugned,  appointments, that Court did    not  consider  it proper,   in  its  judicial  discretion,  to  interfere   in proceedings  for  quo-warranto  at  the  instance  of    the appellant.   In this connection, it was observed It hat  the breach,  of  the   relevant  Ordinance  No.  65  could  have afforded   a  ground  for  the  University     to   withdraw affiliation of the Colleges concernd, but it was not open to the appellant to found his claim on this grievance. 562     In  this Court the question raised  principally  centres round the validity and effect of the proviso to sub-rule  (4 )  of  Rule  30 contained in Part ’VIII  of  the  Collegiate Branch  Rules.   These rules were made by  the  Governor  of Rajasthan under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and were duly published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

dated November 5, 1962 and came into force with effect  from the  date  of  their publication.   The  argument  canvassed before  Us  was  that these rules could  not  override   the provisions of Ordinance No. 65 made under the University  of Rajputana Act of 1946.  This Ordinance lays down the minimum qualifications for teachers of various stages of  University Education in the affiliated Colleges.  Part VIII deals  with the  Faculty  of Medicine etc., and according  to  paragraph (A)(3), teachers in Medical Colleges for M.B.,B.S. and Post- graduate   Courses   must  possess  the   special   academic qualifications  and teaching experience prescribed  therein. The  requisite qualification by way of  teaching  experience prescribed  for professors/Additional Professors/  Associate Professors  in Surgery is, to reproduce the language of  the Ordinance,  "at least five years as Assistant  Professor  or Reader  or  Lecturer  in a Medical  College."   The  minimum qualifications for Principals of affiliated Colleges in  the Faculty  of Medicine etc., are prescribed in Part  X(B)  (3) and they read as under:                     "Master’s  Degree  or  equivalent  Post-               Graduate qualification or a higher one in  one               of  the  branches  in  which  the  College  is               affiliated   with  a   minimum    professional               experience  of 20 years, of which at least  10               years  must  have been spent as a  teacher  of               Post-Graduate   Classes   and   5   years   in               administrative work."     We  may  now  turn to the Collegiate  Branch  Rules  and examine the appellant’s argument.  These Rules framed  under Art. 309 of the Constitution for regulating the  recruitment to  posts  in,  and the conditions  of  service  of  persons appointed  to,  the  Rajasthan Medical  Service  (Collegiate Branch) directly govern the impugned appointments and  their binding,   character is beyond  question. Rule  6  providing for  the composition and strength of the  Rajasthan  Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) lays down that the Service shall consist’  of two wings viz., Clinical and  non-Clinical  and the right of promotion shall be confined to each wing.   The nature of conditions included in each wing’ are as specified in  column  2  of  the  Schedule  attached  to  the   Rules. Procedure  for promotion is dealt with in Part V  of,  these Rules.   Rule  23 provides that the  persons  enumerated  in Column 4 of the SchedUle shall be eligible  on the basis of, seniority  cum-merit, for promotion to  posts speci-fied  in column 2 subject to their possessing minimum  qualifications and experience as laid down by the Rajasthan University  for the  teaching  staff  in  Medical  Colleges.   In  selecting candidates for 563 promotion,  regard is to be had to six factors mentioned  in sub-rule  (  2  )  which   include,   inter  alia   academic qualifications and experience.  In the Schedule in the  non- Clinical wing, the selection posts consisting of  Professors and  Additional Professors are to be filled 100 per cent  by promotion  from Readers.  There is nothing specific in  this Schedule  in  regard to the posts of  Principals  and  these rules  do not provide specifically for  their  appointments. Rule  30, on the basis 6f which arguments  were  principally addressed  in these three appeals, may now be reproduced  in extenso :--                      "30.    Temporary    or     officiating               appointments.   (1) A temporary vacancy  in  a               Senior  or  Selection post, may be  filled  by               Government   by  appointing   thereto  in   an               officiating’ capacity an officer whose name is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             included  in  the’ list  prepared  under  Rule               24(3) or in the lists under Sub-Rules (2)’ and               (3) of Rule 23:                      Provided  that till the preparation  of               the  first  list  or  in  case  the  list   is               exhausted,  a  vacant post may  be  filled  by               Government  by appointing thereto a member  of               the  Service eligible for appointment  to  the               post  by promotion or by  appointing   thereto               temporarily  person eligible for   appointment               by  direct  recruitment to the  service  under               the provisions of these Rules.                      (2)  A temporary vacancy in the  Junior               posts   may   be  filled  by   Government   by               appointing   thereto  temporarily   a   person               eligible for appointment by direct recruitment               to  the service under the provisions of  these               Rules.                      ( 3 ) NO appointment made  under   Sub-               Rule  ( 1 ) and (2) above, shall be  continued               beyond   a  period  of  six   months   without               referring  it  to  the  Commission  for  their               concurrence    and   shall    be    terminated               immediately on their refusal to concur.                      (4)      Notwithstanding       anything               contained in Subrules (1 ) or (3) above or any               other  provisions in the rules, any  selection               or  senior posts falling vacant may be  filled               in   temporarily   by   appointment   of   any               Specialist  (Jr. or Senior) in the service  of               the  State,  who  is a  postgraduate  and  has               teaching   experience  and  practice  in   the               speciality, for such periods as are   required               by the University Ordinance for the time being               in force on the date of such appointment--               Provided that :-                   Two  years  of service rendered   in   the               speciality shall be reckoned as equivalent  to               one  year  teaching experience gained  in  the               Speciality. 564       Sub-rule   (4),  it  maybe pointed out,  was  added  on August  22,  1966  with  retrospective  effect  during   the pendency  of the writ petitions in the High COurt, with  the result that the writ petitions were allowed to be amended so as  to  include  a  challenge  to   the  validity  of   this amendment.   The  amendment was assailed on the  grounds  of mala   hides  and  unconstitutional   discrimination.    The validity  of the retrospective operation of  this   sub-rule was  not  questioned before us  by Shri  Gokhale,  though  a lukewarm  challenge  was suggested before the close  of  the arguments   on  the grounds of mala fides.  It may be  noted that the requirement of teaching experience as laid down  in the University Ordinance also finds place in sub-rule (4) of Rule  30 as added in 1966 and it is only the  proviso  which has  the effect of modifying to some extent this  condition. The  narrow question  requiring  consideration therefore  is whether the proviso, according to which two years of service rendered  in the speciality is to be reckoned as  equivalent to one year’s teaching experience gained in the  speciality, must, as contended on behalf of the appellant, yield to  the requirement in the Ordinance which  prescribes the   minimum qualification of teaching  experience and,  therefore,  must be  ignored.  We are unable to uphold the  contention.   The Collegiate  Branch  Rules having been made pursuant  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

power conferred by Art.  309 of the Constitution, they  must be  given full effect  subject to the provisions of any  Act made   by   the  appropriate  Legislature   regulating   the recruitment  and conditions of service of persons  appointed to the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch).   Such Act  need not specifically deal with the  aforesaid  Medical Services but it must  be an Act as contemplated by Art.  309 by   or  under  which  provision  is  made  regulating   the recruitment and conditions of service taking within its fold the said Medical Services.     This  takes  us to the question of scope and  effect  of Ordinance  No. 65. The University of Rajputana Act  of  1946 (hereafter called the Act) under which Ordinance No. 65  was made was enacted to incorporate the University of Rajputana. The  name  of  the University was changed  in  1956  to  the University  of Rajasthan.  The Syndicate of this  University constituted  under s.21 of the Act is empowered  under  s.29 read  with s.30 to make ordinances, consistent with the  Act and  statutes,  to provide for the matters listed  in  s.29. These   matters  include  in  clause  VI   "emoluments   and conditions  of  service of University ,teachers:."   But  on this,  basis  alone  it  is not easy for  us  to  hold  that Ordinance  No. 65 is, a provision under an  Act,  regulating the  recruitment  and  conditions.  of  service  of  persons appointed  to Rajasthan Medical Service, as contemplated  by Art.  309 of the Constitution.  Shri Gokhale referred us  to entry  41  in List II of 7th Schedule  of  the  Constitution which  deals with the subject, inter alia, of "State  Public Services" and submitted that the Act fell within this  entry and  therefore came within the 565 purview  of  Art.  309.   We  are  not  impressed  by   this submission.  In our opinion, on a consideration of the  pith and substance of the Act and on a comparison of the language used  in  the  entries Nos. 11 and 49 of List II, the  field of  legislation of the Act more’ appropriately  falls  under entry  NO.  11 which deals with the  subject  of  "education including  university."  The appointments of Dr.  Ojha,  Dr. Mathur  and Dr. Rishi thus seem to us to be fully  justified by the Collegiate Branch Rules and their appointments cannot be  held to be invalid by reason merely  of’  non-compliance with  the provisions of Ordinance No.. 65 in regard  to  the condition of teaching experience.  The field of operation of this  Ordinance  appears  to  us to  be  restricted  to  the question  of affiliation of the Colleges concerned with  the Rajasthan  University.  It is noteworthy that the University has  not  thought fit to object to these  appointments.   If there  is  violation of a provision of this  Ordinance  then that  may  appropriately  be  taken  into  account  by   the Rajasthan  Univesity  for  the  purpose  of  withdrawing  or refusing   to  continue  affiliation  of  the  colleges   in question.  But clearly that would not  render the   impugned appointments   null and void; a fortiori that cannot  confer any  right on Dr. Ram Pal  Chaturvedi to approach  the  High Court  by  means  of petition for writ  of  Quo-warranto  to challenge  the appointments of these three persons.  We  are unable  to  hold that these persons are   usurpers  and  are holding  the  posts of Principals without  the  sanction  of authority.     On  the view that we have taken on the scope and  effect of the Collegiate Branch Rules it is unnecessary to consider the  argument  strongly  pressed by Shri  Gokhale  that  the provisions of Ordinance No. 65 are mandatory and we  refrain from expressing any opinion either way.     The appellants challenge on the ground of mala fides  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

also  unsustainable,  Except for the bald assertion  at  the Bar nothing convincing has  been said to persuade us to hold that  r.  30’(4)  added in 1966 was made  for  a  collateral purpose in colourable exercise of the rule making power.     The appeals must, therefore, fail and are dismissed with costs, One set of costs. R.K.P.S.                                 Appeals dismissed. 566