Civil Appeal No 156N of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated 3121974 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No 418 of 1974
Ms Rachna Gupta and Ms Rani Chhabra for the Appellant
729 R Bana for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Judica ture at Allahabad Lucknow Bench dated 3121974
The High Court by a common order disposed of number of Writ Petitions but we are concerned with Writ Petition No 41874 filed by Dr Bhagwan Din Misra who is respondent No 1 before us
Brief facts of the case are that in the month of August 1973 an advertisement appeared in the daily Newspaper National Herald inviting applications for the post of Reader in Linguistics  in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow
Interview of the candidates was held on 8474 at 300 pm by a Selection Committee consisting of five members viz the Vice Chancellor of the University Dr KN Shukla Head of the Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages Lucknow University Dr Bhagirath Misra Head of the Department of Hindi Saugar University Saugar Dr Harbanslal Sharma Head of the Department of Hindi Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh and Shri Shyam Sunder Head of the Department of Hindi Bihar University Muzaffar pur
It may be noted that the three experts from outside as mentioned above were experts in Hindi Literature and not Linguistic experts
The Selection Committee after interview ing the various candidates recommended the name of the appellant Dr Triloki Nath Singh for being appointed to the post of Reader Linguistics in Hindi Department and the respondent No 1 Dr Bhagwan Din Misra was placed in the second position
Dr Bhagwan Din Misra respondent No 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court inter alia stating that the Selection Committee was not a legally constituted Committee and its recommendation should not be acted upon
The writ petition was contested on behalf of the University as well as by the appellant
The High Court held that the prospectus of the University showed that Linguistics  was a separate subject of study
There were two courses in MA Part I and Part II one in Hindi Language and Literature and the other in Linguistics
The High Court observed that even candidates having passed the BA examination in Sanskrit or English or MA Examination in Sanskrit or English were also eligible for admission in MA in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi
Linguistics was thus a separate subject of study and even graduates who might not have passed the 730 BA Examination with Hindi were entitled to be admitted and awarded the degree of MA in Linguistics
The Chancel lor under Statute 17 1 of the University was required to nominate experts out of the panel of experts in the subject of Linguistics 
The High Court further held that having regard to the fact that Linguistics  was a separate subject of study in the University of Lucknow and the Chancellor had drawn a panel of experts in Linguistics  the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn for the subject of Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity substantially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee which could not have been cured under Section 66a of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973 hereinafter as the Act of 1973 and as such the recommendation of the Selection Committee was liable to be quashed
The High Court as a result of the above findings allowed writ petition No 41874 and quashed the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 8th April 1974 for appoint ment to the post of Reader in Linguistics  in the Depart ment of Hindi
Dr Triloki Nath Singh has thus filed the present appeal challenging the order of the High Court
We have heard counsel for both the parties
It may be mentioned that the Lucknow University neither filed any appeal against the order of the High Court nor any counsel appeared on its behalf before us
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Explanation II to sub section 5 of Section 31 of the Act of 1973 the experts drawn out of the panel of experts in Hindi could make selection of Reader in Linguistics  in the Department of Hindi
It was further contended that in view of the fact that a Reader in Linguistics  was to be appointed in the Depart ment of Hindi as such experts in Hindi Language and Litera ture were also qualified to act as experts for the selection of Reader in Linguistics 
Learned counsel tried to seek support from the papers taught for MA in Linguistics as well as for MA in Hindi in order to convince that some papers were common to both the subjects and as such there was nothing wrong or illegal in case the experts of Hindi Language and Literature were appointed for the selection of Reader in Linguistics
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No1 supported the Judgment of the High Court
It was sub mitted by him that Linguistics was a separate subject of study for MA Part I and Part II and merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was in the 731 Department of Hindi it would not make any difference and the experts of Hindi Language and Literature cannot be appointed as experts in the Selection Committee for the selection of Reader in Linguistics
We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record
There is no controversy between the parties that the pro spectus of Lucknow University Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages prescribed the courses of study for MA Part I and Part II in the subject of Hindi Language and Literature and Linguistics separately
The prospectus of Lucknow University Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages prescribed the following courses of study for MA Part I and Part II for Hindi Language and Literature and the other for Linguistics MA Parts I and II There shall two courses in MA Parts I and II one in Hindi Languages and Literature and the other in Linguistics
Students may choose either of these two courses
MA part I Language and Literature Paper I Prachin Hindi Kavya Paper II Madhyayugeen Kavya Paper III Basic and Modern Indian Language Paper IV History Hindi Literature and Criticism Paper V Adhunik Hindi Gadya MA and Part II Language and Literature There shall be four papers and a viva voce test
Paper I Linguistics and Historical Grammar of Hindi Paper II Vishesh Kavi Paper III Adhunik Kavya Paper IV Essay or Thesis or Folk Literature
MA Part I Linguistics Paper I Introduction to the principle of General Linguistics 732 Paper II Phonetics and Phonemics Paper III Descriptive Grammar of Hindi Paper IV Applied Linguistics
MA Part 11 Linguistics There will be four papers and a viva voce test
Paper I Morphology and syntex Paper II Comparative and Historical Linquisitics with special reference to Indo Aryan and Hindi Language
Paper III Dialectology with special reference Hindi Area
Paper IV Essay or Thesis
The above courses of study show beyond any manner of doubt that Hindi Language and Literature and Linguistics are two different and separate subjects
It is also impor tant to note that even graduates who have not passed the BA examination with Hindi could be admitted and awarded the degree of MA in Linguistics
Merely because the Lin guistics is also a subject of study in one paper of Hindi it cannot be said that Linguistics and Hindi Language and Literature fall under the same subject of study in the University
It is an admitted position that separate Panel of Experts was drawn for the subjects of Hindi and Linguis tics
As the Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously placed reliance on Explanation II to sub section 5 of Section 31 of the Act of 1973 it is necessary to reproduce the same
Sub Section 5 of Section 31 reads as under 315a A panel of six or more experts in each subject of study shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after consulting the corresponding Faculty in Indian Universities or such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside Uttar Pradesh as the Chancellor may consider necessary
Every expert to be nominated by the Chancellor under sub section 4 shall be a person whose name is borne on such panel
b The Board of each Faculty shall maintain a standing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of study and every expert to be nominated by the Vice 733 Chancellor under sub section 4 shall be a person whose name is borne on the panel
c A panel referred to in clause a or clause b shall be revised after every three years
 Explanation For the purposes of this sub section a branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a post graduate degree or for Part I or Part II thereof shall be deemed to be a separate subject of study
Explanation 11 Where the post of teacher to be selected is common to more than one subject of study the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study
The High Court while considering a similar argument made before it held that Explanation II could be availed of by the Chancellor when he has drawn a fresh panel of experts in each subject of study under sub section 5a
The High Court further held that Explanation II cannot be divorced from the substantive provision contained in sub section 5a
It cannot stand independently of and separate from the sub section
The Explanation must be read so as to harmonise and clear up any ambiguity in the main sub sec tion
The High Court thus concluded that Explanation II was wholly inapplicable to the instant case and the question had got to be determined whether the experts who constituted the Selection Committee were the experts drawn out of the panel under Clauses 168 and 169 of the Statutes
The High Court then observed that according to the prospectus of the Uni versity Linguistics was a separate subject of study in the University of Lucknow and the Chancellor had a panel of experts on Linguistics drawn under Statutes 168 and 169 the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn for the subject of Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity substan tially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee which could not have been cured by Section 66a of the Act
We are examining the matter in a slightly different manner
Even if the panel already constituted by the Chan cellor prior to the coming into force of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973 is treated as a panel consti tuted under sub section 5a of Section 31 of the Act of 1973 Explanation II does not render any help to the appel lant
We are in complete agreement with the High Court that subject of Hindi Language and Literature and the subject of Linguistics are entirely 734 separate subjects of study
This is clearly borne out from Explanation 1 to sub section 5a of Section 31 of the Act of 1973
Explanation I lays down in a clear manner that for the purpose of this sub section a branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a post graduate degree or for Part I or Part II thereof shall be deemed to be a separate subject of study
The prospectus of the University makes it abundantly clear that separate courses of study are prescribed for MA Part I or Part II in respect of Hindi on the one hand and Linguistics on the other
Explanation II lays down that where the post of teacher to be selected is common to more than one subject of study in that case the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study
The advertisement issued in the present case was placed before us and which clearly made a mention at Serial No 24 One Reader in Linguistics in the Depart ment of Hindi
At Serial No 23 there was a separate men tion There Readers in Hindi
The qualifications essential for the above posts as mentioned in the advertisement reads as under QUAlIFICATIONS ESSENTIAL First or high Second Class Master s Degree and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good academic record and experience of teaching honourspostgraduate classes for not less than five years and published research work of high standard in the subject concerned
The essen tial degree qualification for the post of Readers in Faculty of Law will be LLM degree
 The above provision laying down essential qualifications also goes to show that first or high second class degree and doctorate in the subject concerned was an essential qualifi cation
As already mentioned above posts were mentioned separately for three Readers in Hindi and one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi
Explanation II could only apply in a case where the post of teacher to be select ed was common to more than one subject of study
Advertise ment no where provided that one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject of study
Merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was required in the Department of Hindi it cannot be held that such Reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguistics as well as the subject of Hindi Language and Literature
It may also be noted that from a perusal of the above advertisement alongwith the prospectus of the University clearly goes to show that for the post of 735 Reader in Linguistics it was necessary to have an essential qualification of first or high second class Master s degree and Doctorate in the subject of Linguistics
Explanation II can apply in a case where one common teacher is to be se lected for more than one subject of study and in that con tingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study
In the case in hand before us the advertisement did not mention that the post of one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was common with any other subject of study
Thus the appointment of all the experts in the present case of subject of Hindi for the selection of one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was totally wrong and illegal
In view of the discussion made above we do not find any ground in the appeal to interfere with the Order of the High Court
In the result this appeal fails and is rejected with no order as to costs
RSS Appeal failed


Summary:
The Petitioner was detained under section 31 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985
The grounds were served within time and referred to 3 crimes registered in various police stations on the allegation that the petitioner and his associates armed with deadly weapons committed offences punishable under sections 307451143 147 and 148 IPC and section 251 of the Arms Act
The grounds also referred to 8 crimes under the provi sions of the Prohibition Act where he was described as a bootlegger
Earlier detention under the Act and release by the High Court were also mentioned
It was specifically mentioned that in one of the three cases the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and since there were chances of his being released the detention was ordered to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintainance of public order
In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has challenged the validity of the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the detaining authority has not applied his mind inasmuch as relevant material has not been taken into account and there were absolutely no grounds warranting detention
This Court allowed the Petition on
781990 for reasons to be given later
Giving reasons for allowing the Writ Petition HELD 1
A person is said to be a habitual criminal who by force 928 of habit or inward disposition is accustomed to commit crimes
It implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should be a continuity in the commission of those offences
931C D Vijay Narain Singh vs State of Bihar and Ors and Rashidmiya  Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik vs Police Commissioner Ahmedabad and Anr 1 relied on
Unless there is material to show that the detenu committed any one of the acts mentioned in the definition he can not come within the meaning of Bootlegger 
Though in the grounds there is a reference to 8 crimes under the provisions of the Prohibition Act the detenu does not figure in any one of these cases
There is no material whatsoever of his involvement in any manner in any of these prohibition cases
Therefore he can not be said to be a bootlegger
930F G 3
Admittedly the detenu was acquitted in two of the three criminal cases against him
The third case viz Crime No 9690 was pending investigation and the detenu was granted bail
this is the only case pending against him and the main allegation was that he out of sudden excitement fired the revolver and as a result of which one Mehbub Khan received injury on his leg and again he fired a shot into the air and that he and his associates were moving around in a jeep threatening the people in the area
But in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 13390 while releasing the petitioner on bail it is noted that the said Mehbub Khan had no fire arm injury at all and as a matter of fact the public prosecutor conceded the same
The learned Sessions Judge has also noted that no medical evi dence is produced to prove that any one was injured during the alleged occurrence
If such is the only crime pending in which the detenu is alleged to have participated in it can by no stretch of imagination be said that he comes within the meaning of dangerous person  and the conclusions drawn by the detaining authority are bereft of sufficient material as required under Section 2c of the Act
This betrays non application of mind by the detaining authority
Conse quently the grounds on which the detention order is passed
are irrelevant and non existing
932B E