Civil Appeals Nos
1121 1125 of 1975
From the Judgment and Order dated the 31st March 1975 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos
5948 6115 6736 6779 and 6780 of 1974
Hardev Singh and R section Sodhi for the Appellant
section K Bagga and Mrs section Bagga for Sole Respondent in CA 1121 R 1 in CAs
1122 112575
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD J
These appeals arise out of a decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in various writ petitions filed by the students of the Punjab University who were disqualified for adopting unfair practices in the examinations
Most of them had copied from a common source
By a majority of 2 to 1 the High Court by its Judgment dated March 31 1975 set aside the decisions of a Committee appointed to inquire into the charges against the erring students
The judgment of the majority rests solely on the 69 view that despite the circumstance that two members of the Committee formed the quorum the impunged decisions were vitiated by the fact that only 2 and not all the 3 members of the Committee participated in the proceedings
Aggrieved by the majority judgment of the High Court the Punjab University Chandigarh has filed these appeals by a certificate granted by the High Court on the ground that the appeals involve a substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be determined by this Court
The respondents to these appeals were detected in the use of unfair means by the supervisory staff at different examinations held by the Punjab University
The Deputy Registrar of the University issued notices to the respondents calling upon them to submit their replies to a questionnaire
Respondents denied having used unfair means in the examinations but their explanation having been found to be unsatisfactory the charges were referred for inquiry and decision to the Standing Committee which was appointed to deal with cases of misconduct and use of unfair means at the University examinations
The Standing Committee consisted of Shri G L Chopra a retired Judge of the High Court Shri Ajmer Singh an advocate who was formerly a Minister of the Punjab Government and Shri Jagjit Singh the Registrar of the University
The Standing Committee was appointed by the Syndicate of the University under Regulation 31 of the Punjab University Calender 1973 Volume II
In a meeting dated August 17 1971 the Syndicate passed a Resolution that two members shall form the quorum for the meetings of the Standing Committee appointed under Regulation 31
In everyone of the meetings only two out of the three members of the Standing Committee were present
Respondents appeared before the Standing Committee which on a consideration of their statements came to the unanimous conclusion that the respondents had adopted unfair means in the examinations
By the impugned decisions they were disqualified for varying terms
It is not alleged that the Standing Committee had committed breach of any of the procedural provisions or of the rules of natural justice
We may also mention in passing that none of the respondents took any objection during the inquiry that it was not competent to only two members of the Standing Committee to inquire into the charges
Before the High Court also the sole ground on which the decisions of the Standing Committee were challenged was that the decisions were without jurisdiction inasmuch as all the three members of the Standing Committee had not taken part in the meetings in which the decision to disqualify the respondents was taken
The Punjab University Chandigarh was set up under the East Punjab Ordinance 1947 which was later replaced by the Punjab University Act 1947
By section 8 of the Act the supreme authority of the University vests in the Senate consisting of the Chancellor the Vice Chancellor ex officio Fellows and Ordinary Fellows
Section 1 12 of the Act provides inter alia that the Senate shall exercise its powers in accordance with the statutes rules and regulations for the 70 time being in force
Section 20 of the Act provides that the Executive Government of the University shall vest in the Syndicate consisting of the Vice Chancellor as Chairman the Directors of Public Instruction Punjab Haryana and Chandigarh the Director of Education Himachal Pradesh and not less than 12 or more than 15 ex officio or ordinary Fellows elected by various Faculties
Section 311 of the Act provides for the framing of Regulations and states that the Senate with the sanction of the Government may from time to time make regulations consistent with the Act for providing for all matters relating to the University
Section 31 2 enumerates matters regarding which regulations can be made and they include the conduct of students the procedure to be followed at meetings of the Senate Syndicate and Faculties and the quorum of members to be required for the transaction of business
Acting under the power conferred by section 31 the Senate of the Punjab University framed regulations in consultation with the Government which include regulations relating to the use of unfair means in examinations
These regulations are contained in Chapter II of the Punjab University Calendar 1973 Volume II
The decision of these appeals turns on the construction and meaning of regulations 31 and 321 of Chapter II which read thus 31
The Syndicate shall appoint annually a Standing Committee to deal with cases of the alleged misconduct and use of unfair means in connection with examination 321
When the Committee is unanimous its decision shall be final except as provided in 322
If the Committee is not unanimous the matter shall be referred to the Vice Chancellor who shall either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for decision
The constitution of the Standing Committee is indisputably within the powers of the Syndicate under Regulation 31
No exception can therefore be taken to the appointment of the Standing Committee by the Syndicate and indeed no objection was at any stage taken in that behalf
Equally clear seems to us the position that the Syndicate which had the power to appoint the Standing Committee had the incidental power to fix the quorum for the meetings of the Standing Committee Quorum  denotes the minimum number of members of any body of persons whose presence is necessary in order to enable that body to transact its business validly so that its acts may be lawful
It is generally left to committees themselves to fix the quorum for their meetings and perhaps if the Syndicate had not fixed the quorum it might have been competent to the Standing Committee itself to devise its day to day procedure including the fixation of quorum But that is going one step ahead for here the quorum was fixed not by the Standing Committee but by the Syndicate itself which appointed the Standing Committee and which indubitably had the right to appoint the Committee under Regulation 31
We are unable to see any valid reason for which the fixation of quorum for the 71 meetings of a Committee appointed by the Syndicate can be said to be beyond the powers of the Syndicate
It is wholly inappropriate in this connection to draw on the constitution of judicial tribunals as a parallel because if by law such a tribunal must consist of 3 members there is no jurisdiction in the tribunal to fix a smaller quorum for its sittings
A court is not a committee and if by law any matter is required to be heard say by a bench of three Judges there is no power in those three Judges to resolve that only two of them will form a quorum
In fact quorum is fixed for meetings of committees and not for the sittings of courts
In the instant case the Syndicate had the right to fix the number of persons who would constitute the Standing Committee and by fixing the quorum at 2 it did no more than provide that though the Standing Committee may be composed of 3 persons any 2 of them could validly and effectively transact the business of and on behalf of the committee
Putting the matter a little differently the Syndicate nominated 3 persons to be members of the Standing Committee but resolved that any 2 of them would validly constitute the Standing Committee for the time being to dispose of any business which comes before it
Great reliance was placed by the respondents both in the High Court and before us on Regulation 321 which we have set out above in support of the contention that the decision of the Standing Committee was without jurisdiction since all the members of the Committee had not participated in the various decisions
By Regulation 321 if the Standing Committee is unanimous in its decision the decision is final except as provided in Regulation 322 if the committee is not unanimous the matter has to be referred to the Vice Chancellor who can either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for its decision
It is urged on behalf of the respondents that the possible dissent of the 3rd member were he present would have necessitated a reference to the Vice Chancellor who might not agree with the majority opinion which shows that no sanctity can attach to a decision rendered by less than the whole body of 3 members of the Standing Committee
This argument is purely hypothetical and besides it overlooks that the fixation of quorum for the meetings of a committee does not preclude all the members of the committee from attending the meetings
By the quorum a minimum number of the committee must be present in order that its proceedings may be lawful but that does not mean that more than the minimum are denied an opportunity to participate in the deliberations and the decisions of the committee
Whenever a committee is scheduled to meet due notice of the meetings has to go to all the members of the committee and it is left to each individual member whether or not to attend a particular meeting
Every member has thus the choice and the opportunity to attend every meeting of the committee
If any member considers the matter which is to be discussed or determined in a particular meeting as of such importance that he must make his voice heard and cast his vote it is open to him and indeed he is entitled to attend the meeting and make his presence felt
Though a faint attempt was made in these appeals for the first time to suggest that the notice of the meetings 72 of the Standing Committee was not served on all the 3 members of the committee we are satisfied that such a notice was in fact given and someone or the other of the 3 members chose to remain absent at the meetings of the Standing Committee
There is therefore no warrant for the hypothesis that had the third member attended the meetings he would have dissented from the decision of the 2 other members so as to necessitate a reference to the Vice Chancellor under Regulation 321
Apart from this consideration we are unable to agree that anything contained in Regulation 321 can affect the power of the Syndicate to fix the quorum for the meetings of the Standing Committee
If the quorum consists of 2 members any 2 out of the 3 members can perform the functions of the Standing Committee though the committee may be composed of 3 members
When Regulation 321 speaks of the committee being unanimous it refers to the unanimity of the members who for the time being are sitting as the committee and who by forming the quorum can validly and lawfully discharge the functions of the committee and transact all business on behalf of the committee
If only 2 members out of the 3 who compose the Standing Committee have participated in the business of any particular meeting the question to ask under Regulation 321 is whether there is unanimity amongst those two members
If they are unanimous their decision is final
If they differ the matter has to be referred to the Vice Chancellor
Thus the fixation of quorum neither makes Regulation 321 a dead letter nor does it affect its application or utility
With respect we are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the majority that The manner in which Regulation 321 has been framed leaves no doubt that the consideration of the question of students  misconduct and the use of unfair means in examination by them has been placed at a high pedestal and that therefore there is no escape from the conclusion that the consideration of the case of a student against whom there are allegations of misconduct or of use unfair means in an examination has to be by all the members of the Standing Committee and not by some of them and that any decision of the Syndicate to the contrary would he violative of the letter and spirit of Regulation 321
 The fixation of quorum by the Syndicate violates neither the letter nor the spirit of that Regulation
The majority Judges were therefore in error in holding that Regulation 321 clearly negatives the fixation of a quorum and makes it incumbent that the decision must be taken by the full Committee for the reason that In a way this regulation fixes the quorum at the number of members originally appointed
The learned Judges read far more into Regulation 321 than there is in it and we see no warrant for construing that regulation as fixing the quorum at the number of members originally appointed to the committee
Regulation 321 is aimed at conferring finally on decision of the committee if they are unanimous and at leaving the validity and propriety of a dissenting decision to the judgment of the Vice Chancellor who can deal with the matter himself or refer it to the decision of the Syndicate
Regulation 3 21 does not even remotely attempt to fix the 73 quorum
That is not its purpose and it sounds strange that the Regulation by a circuitous method should fix the quorum at the full complement of members
Quorums are seldom so fixed and were it intended that the entire committee must decide every case Regulation 31 could appropriately have said so
We share the deep concern voiced in the dissenting opinion of Sandhawalia J that there was no justification for ignoring the stream of precedents which had consistently recognised the validity of decisions taken by 2 members of the Standing Committee
In Bharat Indu vs The Punjab University and another1 Regulation 19 which was the precursor of and was identical with Regulation 321 came before the Punjab High Court
By a closely considered judgment Dua J who spoke for the Bench specifically rejected the argument accepted by the two learned Judges in the instant case
In Miss Manjinder Kaur vs The Punjab University Civil Writ No 3516 of 1972 decided on March 30 1973 the same contention was repeated on behalf of the students and once again it was considered and rejected
It is quite true that judicial consistency is not the highest state of legal bliss
Law must grow it cannot afford to be static and theretore Judges ought to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents
Precedents as observed by Lord Macmillan should be stepping stones and not halting places2 But Justice Cardozo s caution should not go unheeded that the weekly change in the composition of the court ought not to be accompanied by changes in its rulings
The language of the Regulations called for no review of established precedents
Nor indeed is there any fear of unfairness if only 2 members decided the cases of students accused of adopting unfair practices in the examinations
In such cases it is so much better that the law is certain
In the result we allow the appeals set aside the decision of the majority and uphold that of the minority Judge
The writ petitions filed by the respondents will consequently stand dismissed but there will be no order as to costs
SR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Regulations 31 and 321 of the Punjab University Calendar 1973 Volume II are as under 31
The Syndicate shall appoint annually a standing committee to deal with cases of the alleged misconduct and use of unfair means in connection with examinations 321
When the committee is unanimous its decision shall be final except as provided in S322
If the Committee is not unanimous the matter shall be referred to the Vice Chancellor who shall either decide the matter himself or refer it to the Syndicate for decision
By virtue of the powers vested in the syndicate the Punjab University appointed a standing committee under Regulation 31 consisting of a retired high court judge an Advocate who was formerly a minister of State of Punjab  the Registrar of the University
It also resolved by its Resolution dated 17th August 1971 that two members shall form the quorum for the meetings of the standing committee appointed under Regulation 31
For adopting unfair practices in the examination respondents were disqualified by the Committee in all the sittings of which only two out of the three members were present
The respondents contended by their writ petitions that the decisions of the Standing Committee were without jurisdiction in as much as all the three members of the Standing Committee had not taken part the meetings in which the decisions to disqualify them were taken
By a majority of 2 to 1 the High Court set aside the decisions taking the view that despite the circumstance that two members of the committee formed the quorum the impugned decisions were vitiated by the fact that only 2 and not all the 3 members of the committee participated in the proceedings
Allowing the appeals by certificate the Court  HELD 1 The Constitution of the Standing Committee is indisputably within the powers of the Syndicate under Regulation 31
The Syndicate which had the power to appoint the Standing Committee had the incidental power to fix the quorum for the meetings of the Standing Committee Quorum  denotes the minimum number of members of any body of persons whose presence is necessary in order to enable that body to transact its business validly so that its acts may be lawful
It is wholly inappropriate to draw on the Constitution of judicial tribunals as a parallel
In the instant case the syndicate by nominating 3 persons to be members of the Standing Committee but by resolving that 2 of them would validly constitute the standing committee did no more than provide that though the Standing Committee may be composed of 3 persons any 2 of them could validly and effectively transact the business of and on behalf of the Committee
70 E F 71 A C ii By the quorum a minimum number of members of the committee must be present in order that its proceedings may be lawful but that does not mean that more than the minimum are denied an opportunity to participate in the deliberations and the decision of the committee
There is no 68 warrant for the hypothesis that had the third member attended the meetings he would have dissented from the decision of the 2 other members so as to necessitate a reference to the Vice Chancellor under Regulation 321
71 F G 72 AB iii When Regulation 321 speaks of the committee being unanimous it refers to the unanimity of the members who for the time being are sitting on the committee and who by forming the quorum can validly and lawfully discharge the functions of the Committee
The fixation of quorum neither makes Regulation 321 a dead letter nor does it affect its application or utility
The fixation of quorum by the Syndicate violates neither the letter nor the spirit of that Regulation
72 C D E F iv Regulation 321 is aimed at conferring finality on decisions of the committee if they are unanimous and at leaving the validity and priority of a dissenting decision to the judgment of the Vice Chancellor who can deal with the matter himself or refer it to the decision of the Syndicate
Regulation 321 does not even remotely attempt to fix the quorum
That is not its purpose and it sounds strange that the Regulation by a circuitous method should fix the quorum at the full complement of members
Quorums are seldom so fixed and were it intended that the entire committee must decide every case Regulation 31 could appropriately have said so
72 G H 73 A It is quite true that judicial consistency is not the highest state of legal bliss
Law must grow it cannot afford to a static and therefore judges ought to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents
But the language of the Regulations called for no review of established precedents
Nor indeed is there any fear of unfairness if only 2 members decided the cases of students accused of adopting unfair practices in the examinations
In such cases it is so much better that the law is certain
73 C D E Bharat Indu vs The Punjab University  Anr
ILR 1967 2 Punjab  Haryana 198 Miss Manjinder Kaur vs The Punjab University Civil Writ No 351672 dt
30 3 1973 decided by the Punjab High Court approved