Case Note & Summary
Background: The appeal arose from writ petitions filed by Dr. Ram Pal Chaturvedi in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the appointments of Dr. D.G. Ojha, Dr. P.D. Mathur, and Dr. Rishi as Principals of three Medical Colleges affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. The appellant contended that the appointees lacked the teaching experience required by Ordinance No. 65 of the University, which prescribed minimum teaching experience for teachers and Principals of medical colleges. The State defended the appointments on the basis of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, particularly Rule 30(4) and its proviso, which were made under Article 309 of the Constitution and relaxed the teaching experience requirement. Facts: The appointments were made between 1964 and 1966 on temporary/officiating basis. Dr. Ojha was appointed as Professor and Officiating Principal of Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner in 1964; Dr. Mathur as Professor and Officiating Principal of Rabindra Nath Tagore Medical College, Udaipur in 1965; and Dr. Rishi as Principal of Medical College, Jodhpur in 1966. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the State added a proviso to Rule 30(4) of the Collegiate Branch Rules with retrospective effect, providing that two years of service rendered in the speciality would be deemed equivalent to one year's teaching experience. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the University qualifications regarding teaching experience were directory, the University had not objected, and the appointments under Rule 30(4) were only temporary or officiating. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate. Legal Issues: Three questions arose: (i) whether Rule 30(4) of the Collegiate Branch Rules must yield to Ordinance No. 65; (ii) whether the retrospective amendment to Rule 30(4) was mala fide; and (iii) whether the teaching experience requirement in Ordinance 65 was mandatory. Arguments: The appellant argued that Ordinance 65, made under the University of Rajputana Act, being a statute, overrode the rules made under Article 309. The respondents contended that the Collegiate Branch Rules, being made under Article 309, were paramount and that the University Ordinance did not regulate the State Medical Service. The appellant also alleged mala fides in the retrospective amendment. Court's Analysis: Justice Dug, delivering the judgment, held that the Collegiate Branch Rules, being framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, must be given full effect subject only to any Act made by the appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch). The Court examined the scheme of Article 309 and ruled that a 'provision under an Act' for this purpose must be an Act made by the Legislature specifically dealing with the regulation of the service in question. The University of Rajputana Act fell under Entry 11 List II (education including universities), not Entry 41 List II (State Public Services). Therefore, Ordinance 65, which dealt with emoluments and conditions of service of University teachers and conditions for affiliation of colleges, did not override the Collegiate Branch Rules. The Court observed that if there was any violation of the Ordinance, the appropriate remedy was for the University to withdraw affiliation, but the University had not taken any such action. The appellant, as a private individual, had no right to challenge the appointments on that ground. On the plea of mala fides, the Court found no material to suggest that the rule-making power was exercised for a collateral purpose or in colourable manner, and hence rejected it. In view of these findings, the Court did not find it necessary to opine on whether the provisions of Ordinance 65 were mandatory or directory. Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed all three civil appeals, upholding the validity of the impugned appointments. The Court affirmed that the appointments were governed by the Collegiate Branch Rules, and the retrospective proviso to Rule 30(4) validly relaxed the teaching experience requirement. No order as to costs was mentioned in the available text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 309 of the Constitution - Provision under an Act - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309; University of Rajputana Act, 1946; Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, Rule 30(4) - The court held that the Collegiate Branch Rules, framed under Article 309, must be given full effect subject only to any Act of the appropriate Legislature regulating recruitment and conditions of service of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch). Ordinance No. 65, made under the University of Rajputana Act (dealing with education under Entry 11 List II), does not constitute such an Act and therefore cannot override the Collegiate Branch Rules. A violation of the Ordinance could only be a ground for the University to withdraw affiliation, and the appellant had no right to challenge the appointments by writ of quo warranto. Held that the appointments were valid and the appeals dismissed (Paras 5-10). B) Mala Fide - Retrospective Amendment to Service Rules - Rule 30(4) Proviso - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 309; Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, Rule 30(4) - The appellant contended that the retrospective addition of the proviso to Rule 30(4) during the pendency of the writ petitions was mala fide and intended to defeat his case. The court found no evidence that the amendment was made for a collateral purpose or in colourable exercise of rule-making power, and thus rejected the plea of mala fide. Held that the amendment was valid and applicable to the impugned appointments (Paras 11-13).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether Rule 30(4) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 overrides Ordinance No. 65 made under the University of Rajputana Act, 1946 regarding teaching experience for Principals of Medical Colleges. 2. Whether the retrospective addition of proviso to Rule 30(4) was mala fide. 3. Whether the provisions of Ordinance 65 regarding teaching experience were mandatory.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision. It held that the Collegiate Branch Rules, made under Article 309 of the Constitution, prevailed over Ordinance No. 65, which was not a provision under an Act regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the Rajasthan Medical Service. The plea of mala fide was rejected for lack of evidence. The Court did not opine on the mandatory nature of Ordinance 65.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Collegiate Branch Rules under Article 309 must be given full effect subject to any Act made by appropriate Legislature regulating the service
- Article 309 provision under an Act means an Act specifically regulating recruitment and conditions of service for that service
- University of Rajputana Act falls under education (Entry 11 List II) not State Public Services (Entry 41 List II)
- breach of University Ordinance may be ground for de-affiliation
- not for quo warranto by private individual
- retrospective amendment to service rules not mala fide absent proof of collateral purpose.
