Case: Punjab University, Chandigarh Vs. Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc

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 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 32.1.Apart from this consideration, we are unable to agree that anything contained in Regulation 32.1 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 32.1 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 32.1 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 32.1 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 32.1 has been framed leaves no doubt that the consideration of the question of students misconduct and the use of unfair means in examination by the m 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 b e 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 32.1." 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 32.1 "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 32.1 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 32.1 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 2.1 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.6. 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 v. The Punjab University and another(1), Regulation 19 which was the precursor of and was identical with Regulation 32.1 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 v. 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 therefore 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 places".(2) But, Justice Cardozos 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.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]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 Standingshare 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 v. The Punjab University and another(1), Regulation 19 which was the precursor of and was identical with Regulation 32.1 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 v. 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 therefore 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 places".(2) But, Justice Cardozos 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.