PUNJAB UNIVERSITYversusV.N. TRIPATHI AND ANR.

A                              PUNJAB UNIVERSITY
                                           V.

                             V.N. TRIPATHI AND ANR.

                                 AUGUST 28, 2001

B              [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]


          Universities :

          Punjab University Act, 1947 :
c
          Section 21-Scope of-University-Registrar-Power to initiate legal
    proceeding-Held, decision to initiate legal proceeding should be taken by
    competent authority-Registrar cannot initiate proceedings of his own-Held
    action taken by Registrar was without authority-Action of Registrar
D   subsequently ratified by Senate of University--Held ratification relates back
    to time when action was taken without authority-Refusal to examine the
    matter on merits despite the ratification would not serve the ends ofjustice-
    Hence matters remanded to First Appellate Court for decision on merits.

           In legal proceedings between the Appellant-University and the
E   Respondents, the Registrar of University preferred appeals against the
    judgment§ and decrees of Trial Court. The Respondent's objection that in
    the absence of any decision taken by the Senate of the University the Registrar
    was not competent to file the appeals was upheld by the Appellate Court.
    Appeals preferred by University were also dismissed by High Court which
    held that the Registrar was not competent to file appeals. In appeal to this
F   Court it was contended on behalf of the Appellant-University that (i) in view
    of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Punjab University Act, 1947
    the Registrar was competent to file appeals and (ii) as a result of the Resolution
    passed on 29.2.1991 by the Senate of the University the action of the ~egistrar
    in filing the appeals stand ratified.

G            Allowing the appeals, the Court

          HELD : I. The courts below have rightly not accepted the contention
    of the Appellant-University that the Registrar as an in-charge of the
    Administration represents the University in all legal proceedings. The
H   Registrar under Section 21 of the Punjab Universities Act, 1947 is authorised
                                           280
                   PUNJAB UNIVERSITYv. V.N. TRIPATHI                           281
to represent the University in all legal proceedings, except where there is a          A
decision of the Senate to the contrary. It does not mean ·that he enjoys the
authority to institute any suit or appeal or any other legal proceedings at his
own. The decision to initiatl' any legal proceedings has to be taken by the
authority competent to do so and thereafter in such proceedings, for or against
the University, Registrar would represent the University. While representing           B
the University, it would be open to the Registrar to take all incidental steps
necessary for prosecution of the proceedings, but Section 21 cannot be relied
upon by the University to contend that the Registrar would be entitled to
initiate the legal proceedings at his own. (283-D, E, F)

       2. The resolution dated 29.9.1991 passed by the Senate of the University        C
is in two parts. The first part deals with the delegation of the powers to the
RegistrarNice-chancellor authorising them to sue or file an appeal under
regulation 10.2 of the Regulations of the Punjab University. The other part
pertains the suits or appeal which have already been filed by the Register/
Vice-chancellor i.e. to say, the act of the filing of the appeals has been ratified.
In this background if the Registrar filed the appeal, against the decision of          D
the Trial Court, which had gone against the Punjab University ihough strictly
speaking exceeded his authority, but his action in having filed the appeals was
later on ratified by the competent authority by resolution dated 29.9.1991.
                                                                      1285-B, C, E)

      3. There is no substance in the submission made on behalf of the                 E
respondent that the ratification came very late. ft would not have any material
bearing on the fact of ratification of the action of the Registrar in filing the
appeals. The ratification has the effect of relating back to the time when the
action was taken without authority. Despite the ratification by the competent
authority, refusal to examine the matter on merits, would in no way serve              F
the ends of justice. Consequently, the matters are remanded to the respective
First Appellate Courts for decision on merits. (285-G, H; 286-A)

        Marathwada University v. Sesh Rao Ba/want Rao Chauhan, 11989] 3 SCC
page 132, distinguished.
                                                                                       G
        Jugraj Singh v. Jawant Singh, AIR 11971) SCC 761, referred to.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9814 of
1996.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.96 of the Punjab and Haryana            H
    282                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   High Court in R.S.A. No. 647 of 1996.

                                          WITH
          Civil Appeal Nos. 473-474 of 1998.

         Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta, Ms. Shobha and Ms. Anu Mehta for the
B   Appellant.

         Ashok K. Pathania, Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms. K. Pathania and Goodwill
    Jndeevar for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c         BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The above noted appeals since involve the
    same question for consideration, they have been together and they are being
    disposed of by this common judgment.

          The respondent Dr. V.N. Tripathi, filed a Civil Suit No. 148/13.8.1986
D   against the Punjab University, Chandigarh, through its Registrar and Shri
    R.P. Bumba, the Vice-Chancellor of Punjab University, as the defendant. The
    Suit was decreed on 22.2.1991, declaring that the decision of the Punjab
    University saying that the post of the Plaintiff in the Department of
    Mathematics as Lecturer was vacant w.e.f. 28.11.1985, was wrong and bad
    in law. The plaintiff was to continue in service with consequential benefits.
E   The Senate of the University was however, left with the option to take any
    action in the matter afresh in accordance with law. So far, the respondent
    Smt. Shimla Devi is concerned, she had also filed a Civil Suit No. 220 of
    1984 which was decreed by Sub-Judge !st Class, Chandigarh on 27.3.1985
    quashing the order of dismissal of her services and she was to be deemed to
    be in service of the Punjab University with all consequential benefits. Punjab
F   University through Registrar was impleaded as the defendant in the Suit.

          In both the matters/aforesaid, appeals against the judgments and decrees
    of the Trial Courts were preferred by the Punjab University. The respondents
    took an objection against the filing of th(; appeal on the ground that the
G   Registrar of the Punjab University was net authorised or competent to file the
    appeals, in absence of any decision taken by the Senate of the University.
    The objections, as raised by the respondents had been upheld in both the
    appeals, by the First Appellate Court. The appeals were therefore, dismissed
    on the same ground. The Punjab University thereafter preferred Regular Second
    Appeals before the High Court, they also met the same fate. The appeals
H   have been dismissed on the ground that they had been filed by the Registrar,
      PUNJAB UNIVERSITY v. V.N. TRIPATHI [BRIJESH KUMAR, J.)                 283
who was not competent to file the same, hence, the merits were not considered        A
by ,the Appellate Courts. Regular Second Appeal No. 64 7 of 1996 was filed
by the Punjab University in the case of Dr. V.N. Tripathy which was dismissed
on 27.03.1996. The appeal namely (RSA) Regular Second Appeal No. 646
of 1996 in the case of Shimla Devi was dismissed on 05.09.1997 inter a/ia
referring to the judgment dated 27.03.1996 in the case of Dr. V.N. Tripathi.         B
The point for consideration before us is as to whether the Registrar was
competent to file the appeals without any decision of the Senate of the
University to that effect; or not.

     Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the provisions contained
under Section 21 of the Punjab University Act 1947, it reads as follows:-            C
            "Registrar:- The Registrar shall be whole-time paid officer of the
        University appointed by the Senate. He shall be in charge of the
        administration of the University acting under the immediate control
        of the vice-chancellor and shall represent the University in all legal
        proceedings except where the Senate otherwise resolves to the                D
        contrary."

       On the basis of the above provision, it is submitted that the Registrar
is in-charge of the Administration of the University and represents the
University in all legal proceedings. This right of the Registrar is ever available
except in cases where there is a resolution to the contrary passed by the            E
Senate. It entitles him to even file an appeal. The High Court and the Courts
below have not accepted this contention of the appellant and rightly. The
Registrar no doubt represents the University in all legal proceedings, but it
does not mean that he enjoys the authority to institute any suit or appeal or
any other legal proc(;eding at his own. The decision to initiate any legal           F
proceeding has to be taken by the authority competent to do so and thereafter
in such proceedings, for or against the University, Registrar would represent
the University. While representing the University, it would be open to the
Registrar to take all incidental steps necessary for prosecution of the
proceedings, but Section 21 can not be relied upon by the appellant to contend
that the Registrar would be entitled to initiate the legal proceedings at his        G
own. This contention raised before us, thus fails.

      It has next been submitted on behalf of the appellant that on the
recommendation of the Syndicate, the Senate of the University passed a
resolution on 29.09.199 l which reads as follows:-
                                                                                     H
    284                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A           "The recommendations of the Syndicate contained in Item No. 23 on
            the agenda were read out and unanimously approved, i.e.:-

            23. That the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor l.Je authorised to sue or file
                an appeal in the court (under Regulation I 0.2 at page 32 of the
                P.U. Cal Vol.I, 1989)
B                That the action taken by the Registrar/Vice-Chancellor in cases
            wher.e suits had already been filed or appeals preferred by them stood
            ratified."

          On the basis of the above resolution, it is submitted that the action of
C the Registrar in filing the appeal stands ratified, hence, the plea of the
  respondents that the appeals are incompetent has no force. Learned Counsel
  for the respondent submits that the Senate of the University is the main body
  invested with powers of entire management of the affairs of the University in
  accordance with Statutes, Rules & Regulations in force. This would also
  include powers to initiate legal proceedings as well. It is further submitted that
D under Regulation 10.2 of the Regulation of the Punjab University, the Senate
  can delegate its function to those authorities as mentioned in the said regulation .
  and the Registrar is not one of the authorities to whom the delegation could
  be made. Therefore, it is submitted that the High Court was right in holding
  that the action of the Registrar in filing the appeal was void and that being
E the petition his action in filing the appeal could not be ratified. Jn support of
  the above contentions, he has relied upon the decision reported in [1989] 3
  SCC page 132. Marathwada University v. Sesh Rao Ba/want Rao Chauhan.
  This case in our view will not help the respondent. The Executive Council
  was competent to dismiss an officer of the University. On receipt of an inquiry
  report against th.: officer, the Executive Council resolved to give full power
F to the vice-chancellor to take the decision on the report. The vice chancellor
  instead of acting on the basis of the inquiry report, appointed another Inquiry
  Officer and on the basis of the second inquiry report, dismisses the officer, of
  the University. The Executive Council sought to ratify the action of the vice-
  chancellor in passing the order of dismissal but the Court did not accep! the
G same mainly on two grounds that the vice-chancellor could pass any order on
  the basis of the report supplied by the Executive Council but he could not
  appoint another Inquiry Officer and act on the basis of second report. And
  secondly, the delegation of the power, under the statute was subject to approval
  by the Chancellor which was lacking in the case, hence, the action of the vice
  chancellor was held to be void ab-initio and no amount of ratification could
H validate the order. The case pertains to the realm of disciplinary proceedings
        PUNJAB UN!VERSITYv. V.N. TRIPATHI [BRJJESH KUMAR, J.]                  285

and dismissal of an officer of the University by the authority competent under         A
the enactment. The case stands on a different footing. The learned counsel
for the appellant places reliance upon a case reported in Jugraj Singh v. Jawant
Singh, AIR [ 1971] SCC 761; in this case the act of the holder of pilw€r of
attorney in transaction of sale, including presentation of the deed before the
Registrar, at a time when power of attorney did not authorise him to present           B
the deed for registration but the act was ratified in the subsequent power of
attorney. It was held that the ratification was valid and relates back to the date
of original act.

      The resolution dated 29.9.1991 is in two parts. The first apart deals with
the delegation of the powers to the Registrar/vice-chancellor authorising them         C
to sue or file an appeal under the regulation I 0.2 of the Regulations of the
Punjab University. The other part pertains the suits or appeals which have
already been filed by the Registrar/vice-chancellor that act of filing of the
appeals has been ratified. The first part deals with delegations of the power
for acts to be done in future. The other part is not delegation of power, but
ratifying the action, which has already been taken by the authorities mentioned        D
therein by act of filing the appeals. It has already been noticed that the Registrar
under Section 21 of the Punjab Universities Act 1947 is authorised to represent
the University in all legal proceedings, except where there is a decision of the
Senate to the contrary. While representing the University, in view of the
provisions under Section 21 of the Punjab University Act, the Registrar would          E
obviously be taking several steps in prosecution of the legal proceedings. The
Registrar would not be totally a stranger in the matters relating to legal
proceedings in the Court. In t11is background if the Registrar filed the appeal,
against the decision of the Trial Court which had gone against the Punjab
University though strictly speaking exceeded his authority, but his action in
having filed the appeals was later on ratified by the competent authority by           F
resolution dated 29.9.1991. The Registrar is a responsible officer of the
University and has statutory powers under Section 21 of the Act to represent
the University in legal proceedings. Had the Senate not ratified the act of the
filing of the appeal, it would of course have been a diffrrent matter, but not
thereafter. We also find no substance in the submission made on behalf of the          G
respondent that the ratification came very late. In our view. it would not have
any material bearing on the fact of ratification of the action of the Registrar
in filing the appeals. The ratification I.as the effect of relating back to the time
when the action was taken without authority. Despite the ratification by the
competent authority, refusal to examine the matter on merits, would in no way
serve the ends ofjustice. It would only be hankering to the technicalities rather      H
    286                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A than to be concerned with the intent and the substance. In view of the
    discussion held above, we allow the appeals and set aside the judgment passed
    by the High Court and Appellate Courts below and remand the matters to the
    respective First Appellate Courts for decisions on merits. Since the appeals
    have become old they shall be disposed of expeditiously. There would
B   however, be no order as to costs.

    T.N.A.                                                     Appeals allowed.