Case: D. S. Reddy Vs. Chancellor, Osmania University &amp; Ors

the Osmania University (Second Amendment Act. 1966 shall continue to hold that office only until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor under S. 12 (1) as amended and enters upon his office, and such appointment shall be made within ninety days after such commencement. 47. We are inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Setalvad, that there is no justification for the impugned legislation resulting in a classification of the Vice-Chancellors into two categories, viz., the appellant as the their existing Vice-Chancellor and the future Vice-Chancellor to be appointed under the Act. 48. In our view, the Vice-Chancellor, who is appointed under the Act, or the Vice-Chancellor who was holding that post on the date of the commencement of the Second Amendment Act, form one single group or class. Even assuming that the classification of these two types of persons as coming under two different groups can be made, nevertheless it is essential that such a classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes the appellant from the Vice-Chancellor appointed under the Act. We are not able to find any such intelligible differentia on the basis of which the classification can be justified. 49. It is also essential that the classification or differentia effected by the statute must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute. We have gone through the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Second Amendment Bill which became law later, as well as the entire Act itself, as it now stands. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Second Amendment Bill, extracted above, it is seen that except stating a fact that the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor has been reduced to 3 years under S. 13 (1) and that S. 13-A was intended to be enacted, no other policy is indicated which will justify the differentiation. The term of office fixing the period of three years for the Vice-Chancellor, has been already effected by the First Amendment Act and, therefore, the differential principle adopted for terminating the services of the appellant by enacting S. 13-A of the Act cannot be considered to be justified. In other words, the differentia adopted in S. 13-A and directed as against the Appellant - and the appellant alone - cannot be considered to have a rational relation to the object sought to he achieved by the Second Amendment Act. 50. While a Vice-Chancellor appointed under S. 12 of the Act can be removed from office only by adopting the procedure under S. 12 (2), the services of the appellant, who was also a Vice-Chancellor and similarly situated, is sought to be terminated by enacting S. 13-A of the Act. We do not see any policy underlying the Act justifying this differential treatment accorded to the appellant. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellors has been no doubt reduced wider the First Amendment Act and fixed for 3 years for all the Vice-Chancellors. But, so far as the appellant is concerned, by virtue of S. 13-A of the Act, he can continue to hold that office only until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor, and that appointment is to be made within 90 days. While all other Vice-Chancellors, appointed under the Act, can continue to be in office for a period of three years, the appellant is literally forced out of his office, on the expiry of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Second Amendment Act. There is also no provision in the statute providing for the termination of the services of the Vice-Chancellors, who are appointed under the Act, in the manner provided under Section 13-A of the Act. By S. 13-A, the appellant is even denied the benefits which may be available under the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the Act, which benefit is available to all other Vice-Chancellors. 51. The appointment of the appellant in 1959 and, again in 1964, wider S. 12 (1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the two object amendments, by the Chancellor, must have been, no doubt, from a panel of names submitted by a committee constituted under S. 12 (2). The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor after the passing of the First Amendment Act, is to be made exclusively by the Chancellor under S. 12 (1), as the section now stands. That is a circumstance, relied on by the respondent, for differentiating the appellant as an existing Vice-Chancellor from a Vice-Chancellor to be appointed under the Act as amended. Another circumstance relied on is that the appellant has been a Vice-Chancellor for 7 years. In our opinion these are not such vital or crucial factors which will justify treating the appellant as a class by himself. because the powers and duties of a Vice-Chancellor, either under the Act, prior to the amendment or under the Act, after amendment continue to be the same. To conclude, the classification of the appellant, as a class by himself, is not founded on any intelligible differentia, which distinguishes him from other Vice-Chancellors and it has no rational relation to the object of the statute, and so S. 13-A is hit by Art. 14. 52. The appellant has attacked S. 13-A, as discriminatory, relying upon a different provision, made under S. 33-A, in respect of the Senate, Syndicate. Academic Council and the Finance Committee. We have, however, not considered the question as to whether the appellant can be treated as falling under the same class, as the other authorities mentioned in S. 33-A as we have accepted the appellants contention, based upon Art. 14, on other grounds. 53. For the above reasons, we accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. and hold that S. 5 of the Second Amendment Act (Act XI of 1966), introducing S. 13-A in the Act, is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and, as such, has to be struck down as unconstitutional.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The findings recorded, and the views expressed, by the High Court are sought to be sustained by the learned Additional Solicitor-General, appearing for the respondents. But, we do not think it necessary to go into the larger controversy that has been raised by the appellant, before the High Court, in the view that we take, that the appellant must succeed in respect of the attack levelled against the impugned provision, based upon Art. 14 of the Constitution. As to whether the criticism, made by the appellant about the proposals to amend the Act, was or was not responsible for the passing of the legislation in question does not assume much of an importance; because, the simple question iswhether the provision, S. 13-A, as it now stands in the Act, is violative, in any manner, of Art. 14 of theConstitution.Therefore, it is clear that S. 13-A applies only to the appellant. Though, no doubt, it has been stated, on behalf of the respondents that similar provisions were incorporated, at about the same time in two other Acts, relating to two other Universities, viz., the Andhra University and the Sri Venkateswara University, and though this circumstance has also been taken into account by the learned Judges of the High Court, in our opinion, those provisions have no bearing in considering the attack levelled by the appellant on S. l3-A of the ActThis is a clear case where the statute itself directs its provisions, by enacting S. 13-A, against one individual, viz., the appellant; and, before it can be sustained as valid, this Court must be satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for grouping the appellant as a class by himself and that such reasonable basis must appear either in the statute itself or must be deducible from other surrounding circumstances. According to learned counsel for the appellant, all Vice- Chancellors of the Osmania University come under one group and can be classified only as one unit and there is absolutely no justification for grouping the appellant under one class and the Vice-Chancellors to be appointed in future under a separate class. In any event, it is also urged that the said classification has no relation or nexus to the object of the enactmentWhile a Vice-Chancellor appointed under S. 12 of the Act can be removed from office only by adopting the procedure under S. 12 (2), the services of the appellant, who was also a Vice-Chancellor and similarly situated, is sought to be terminated by enacting S. 13-A of the Act. We do not see any policy underlying the Act justifying this differential treatment accorded to the appellant. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellors has been no doubt reduced wider the First Amendment Act and fixed for 3 years for all the Vice-Chancellors. But, so far as the appellant is concerned, by virtue of S. 13-A of the Act, he can continue to hold that office only until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor, and that appointment is to be made within 90 days. While all other Vice-Chancellors, appointed under the Act, can continue to be in office for a period of three years, the appellant is literally forced out of his office, on the expiry of 90 days from the date of commencement of the Second Amendment Act. There is also no provision in the statute providing for the termination of the services of the Vice-Chancellors, who are appointed under the Act, in the manner provided under Section 13-A of the Act. By S. 13-A, the appellant is even denied the benefits which may be available under the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the Act, which benefit is available to all other Vice-ChancellorsThe appointment of the appellant in 1959 and, again in 1964, wider S. 12 (1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the two object amendments, by the Chancellor, must have been, no doubt, from a panel of names submitted by a committee constituted under S. 12 (2). The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor after the passing of the First Amendment Act, is to be made exclusively by the Chancellor under S. 12 (1), as the section now stands. That is a circumstance, relied on by the respondent, for differentiating the appellant as an existing Vice-Chancellor from a Vice-Chancellor to be appointed under the Act as amended. Another circumstance relied on is that the appellant has been a Vice-Chancellor for 7 years. In our opinion these are not such vital or crucial factors which will justify treating the appellant as a class by himself. because the powers and duties of a Vice-Chancellor, either under the Act, prior to the amendment or under the Act, after amendment continue to be the same. To conclude, the classification of the appellant, as a class by himself, is not founded on any intelligible differentia, which distinguishes him from other Vice-Chancellors and it has no rational relation to the object of the statute, and so S. 13-A is hit by Art. 14The appointment of the appellant in 1959 and, again in 1964, wider S. 12 (1) of the Act, as it stood prior to the two object amendments, by the Chancellor, must have been, no doubt, from a panel of names submitted by a committee constituted under S. 12 (2). The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor after the passing of the First Amendment Act, is to be made exclusively by the Chancellor under S. 12 (1), as the section now stands. That is a circumstance, relied on by the respondent, for differentiating the appellant as an existing Vice-Chancellor from a Vice-Chancellor to be appointed under the Act as amended. Another circumstance relied on is that the appellant has been a Vice-Chancellor for 7 years. In our opinion these are not such vital or crucial factors which will justify treating the appellant as a class by himself. because the powers and duties of a Vice-Chancellor, either under the Act, prior to the amendment or under the Act, after amendment continue to be the same. To conclude, the classification of the appellant, as a class by himself, is not founded on any intelligible differentia, which distinguishes him from other Vice-Chancellors and it has no rational relation to the object of the statute, and so S. 13-A is hit by Art. 14We have, however, not considered the question as to whether the appellant can be treated as falling under the same class, as the other authorities mentioned in S. 33-A as we have accepted the appellants contention, based upon Art. 14, on other grounds.