LAW OF EDUCATION NCP 1 ASSIGNMENT

CASE ANALYSIS OF
MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY VS SESHRAO
BALWANT RAO CHAVAN

Name: Nithya Sri S

Enrollment No. 19FLICHH020071
Course: BA.LLB (Hons)
Section: D
 CASE ANALYSIS

MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY VS SESHRAO BALWANT RAO

CHAVAN ON 13 APRIL, 1989

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: 1989 AIR 1582, 1989 SCR (2) 454

NAME OF THE COURT: Supreme Court of India

YEAR OF THE CASE: 1989

STRENGTH OF THE BENCH: Two Judges Bench

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) and KULDIP SINGH (J)

LEGAL PROVISIONS:
1. Article 136: Special Leave Petition1
2. Article 226: Power of the High Court to issue certain writs2 ( WRIT OF
CERTIORARI)
3. Marathwada University Act, 1974: Sections 8, 10, 11, 19, 23, 24, 27 and 84

PRINCIPAL PART OF THE JUDGMENT:

There was no prior delegation or subsequent delegation of power to the Vice-Chancellor to
take disciplinary action against the respondent, Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan and the
ratification of the disciplinary action by the Executive Council could not be sustained as
action without power has no legal validity

VERY BRIEF FACTS:

1. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan was a Deputy Registrar of the appellant University. As
Mr Yelikar who was Controller of Examinations had proceeded on leave, the
respondent was directed to discharge the duties of Controller of Examinations. Mr
Swaminathan from Madras who was entrusted with printing works to conduct annual
1
The Constitution of India, Article 136
2
The Constitution of India, Article 226
 examinations of the university have lodged a complaint alleging that the respondent
had delayed the payment of the bills of an out-station party which was received by
the University .
2. The Executive Council of the University appointed a four member committee
including the Vice Chancellor to hold an enquiry to find out whether the bills were
deliberately kept pending with any ulterior motive. The committee found the
respondent guilty upon prima facie observations. The Executive Council of the
University desired to investigate the matter thoroughly by another committee and
appointed Mr. N B Chavan. The report stated that there was no delay in the clearing
the bills and also found that the claim of Mr. Swaminathan was excessive to the extent
of Rs. 48000 and odd. The committee gave a clean chit to the respondent as to his
conduct in discharging the duties as Controller of Examinations. The Executive
Council did not take any decision on the report of the Enquiry Officer, but entrusted
the question to the Vice-Chancellor who was present at the meeting. The Vice-
Chancellor directed a departmental enquiry against the respondent and appointed an
advocate as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer by his report held the respondent
guilty of all the charges levelled against him.
3. The Vice Chancellor after giving a show cause notice and considering the reply of the
respondent, dismissed respondent from service.
4. The respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 challenging his dismissal.
Upon the hearing of High Court, the court directed the matter to be placed before the
Executive Council. The Executive Council ratified the action of Vice Chancellor in
the meeting considered the matter at its meeting and confiemed the dismissal of the
respondent.
5. When the writ petition was finally decided, the High Court looked at the case's merits
and determined that the Vice-Chancellor's action was without power. The High Court
quashed the disciplinary proceedings and termination of services taken against the
respondent. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the Marathwada University by
obtaining special leave has appealed to Supreme Court.

ISSUES PREPARED BY THE COURT

1. ISSUE 1: Whether the Vice-Chancellor was competent to direct disciplinary action

against the respondent?
 2. ISSUE 2: Whether the ratification done by the Executive Council is valid in the eyes
of law or not?
ANSWER TO THE ISSUES

ISSUE 1:
 In every University, Vice chancellor is the conscious keeper, principal executive,
academic officer and constitutional ruler of the university. Vice Chancellor is
entrusted with magisterial powers and overall administration of academics as well as
non- academic affairs.
 The Executive Council granted the Vice-Chancellor "full power to take a decision" in
the resolution, which was plainly on the report of Mr. Chavan and not on any other
subject or question given the context. The report was subject to the Vice-Chancellor's
approval or disapproval, with notification to the Executive Council. He was not
authorized to take any additional action, so he was unable to take any other action.
 As per section 11 (3)3 , Vice Chancelor has the right to regulate the work and conduct
of officers and teaching and other employees of the the University. But this Power to
regulate the work and conduct of officers cannot include the power to take
disciplinary action for the removal of the officers.
 As per sec. 24(1)(xxix)4 of the Marathwada University Act, 1974 Act confers power
to appoint officers on the Executive Council and it generally includes the power to
remove. It is futile to contend that the Vice-Chancellor can exercise that power which
is conferred on the Executive Council.
 The principle that was interpreted was the act confers a particular body to exercise a
power and it must be exercised by that body alone. Other cannot exercise the power
unless it was delegated by law.
 Approval of the Chancellor to the delegation of power by the Executive Council to
the Vice-Chancellor was mandatory under section 24(1)(xii)5 read with section 846
of the Marathwada University Act, 1974.
 As the statutory requirement was not in conformity, Thus Vice-Chancellor does not
confer power to take action against the respondent.

3
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 11(3)
4
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 24(1)(xxix)
5
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 24(1)(xi)
6
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 84
ISSUE 2
 The Vice-Chancellor was given complete authority by the Executive Council to
pursue further action and make a judgement in each of the cases of the defaulting
officers at its meeting on March 22, 1979.
 The power delegated to Vice-Chancellor by the Executive Council under the
resolution was "full power to take a decision" which in the context, was obviously on
the report of Mr. Chavan only not on any other matter. The Vice-Chancellor should
have either accepted or rejected the report with prior intimation to the Executive
Council. Indeed he should not have taken any other action which he was not
authorised to do so.
 Approval of the Chancellor to the delegation of power by the Executive Council to
the Vice-Chancellor was mandatory under section 24(1)(xii) read with section/84
of the Marathwada University Act.
 Ratification is typically an action taken by the principal in relation to a contract or by
his agent. The Executive Council fully supports the actions taken by the then Vice-
Chancellor against both officers because:
 There has been no inadequacy in the proceedings against both officers;
 The punishment ordered against both officers is commensurate with the
defaults and allegations proven against both officers; and
 There has been no inadequacy in the proceedings against either officer.
 Ratification by the principal does not merely give validity to the agent's unauthorised
act as from the date of the ratification: it is antedated as to take effect from the time of
the agent's act.
 Therefore, principle of ratification do not have any application with regard to exercise
of powers conferred under statutory provisions. Any action taken without authority is
not legally valid and the statutory authority is not allowed to go beyond the authority
granted. Ratification cannot cure an ultra vires action of the Vice Chancellor by the
Executive Council which is ab initio void.

ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS AND PRECEDENT-

Statutory provisions of the Marathwada University Act, 1974 :

1. Section 10:
 It provides for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor7.
2. Section 11:
11(1): The Vice-Chancellor is the University's chief academic and executive officer.
11(3): The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for ensuring that the requirements of
this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, and the Regulations are faithfully followed.
11(4): If the vice chancellor has cause to think that there is an emergency that
necessitates taking immediate action8
3. Section 24:
It deals with the powers and duties of the Executive Council9.
4. Section 24(1)(xii):
It provides for delegation of power by the Executive Council. It specifies that any
authority held by the Executive Council (apart from the ability to enact ordinances)
may be transferred to the Vice-Chancellor or any other officer with the Chancellor's
consent10.
5. Section 8411:
It provides for delegation of powers and it states that any officer or authority of the
University may by order, delegate his or its power (except power to make Ordinance
and Regulations).

Precedent:
In the case of Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. The Union of India 1974 1 SCR 30412. It was
a case of termination of services of the Secretary of a Company. The court held that regularly
constituting a meeting of Board of Directors to ratify the action which was though
unauthorised was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to
the date of the act ratified and it was held that the services of the appellant was validly
terminated.
INTERPRETATION:
 Vice chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University who
has the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non-academic

7
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 10
8
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 11
9
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 24
10
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 24(1)(xii)
11
Marathwada University Act, 1974 (Act No.XXV of 1974), Section 84
12
Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta v. The Union of India 1974 1 SCR 304
 affairs. He has the implied powers to deal during the emergency situations. He also
has the right to regulate the work and conduct of all the employees of the University.
 The Action of Vice chancellor who directed a departmental enquiry against the
respondent and dismissed him from the service was ULTRA VIRES.
 The termination of service of the respondent cannot be assailed for want of power or
jurisdiction on the part of Vice-Chancellor. The order passed by the Vice Chancellor
was defective as the approval of the Chancellor to the delegation of power by the
Executive Council to the Vice Chancellor is a mandatory requirement.
My opinion is that action of the vice chancellor was not in harmony with statutory
requirement.
 I appreciate the judgement given by the High Court and Supreme court in
dismissing the contentions of the counsel for the Vice Chancellor as the
statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and such action
has no legal validity. Vice Chancellor was not competent to direct disciplinary
action against the respondent.
 I also appreciate the explanation of the court in the regard of DELEGATION
OF POWER , it was stated that - When statute prescribes a particular body to
exercise power, that body alone and none else can exercise it , Unless it is
delegated.
 I appreciate the court’s view on the Principle of Ratification which explains
the relationship between the agent and principle. The agent is acting without
being authorized to do so at the moment. In case the principle acts, accepts and
adopts the acts of agents which was without the authority as a prior
authorisation. It gives rise to the considerable difficulty and dispute that
ratification by the principle does not give validity to the agent’s unauthorised
act as from the date of the ratification. Ratification which is ‘equivalent to an
antecedent authority’

JUDGMENT BY THE COURT

The Court held that there was no prior delegation of power to the Vice-Chancellor to take
disciplinary action against the respondent. There was no subsequent delegation either.
Therefore, neither the Vice-Chancellor's decision nor the Executive Council's
ratification could be upheld. The appeal is therefore denied and dismissed with costs.