AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ramachandra Rao, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 656 Education (W) Department dated 13-6-1978 nominating Sri B T. L. N, Choudary and Sri Ibrahim Khan as members of the executive council of the Autonomous Post-Graduate Centre, Anantapur. He also seeks a further declaration that be is entitled to continue in office as Member of the Executive Council of the said Centre till 18-9-1979 or till the date of the next reconstitution of Ike-Executive Council of the said Centre. The relevant facts are as follows: - Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh University Acts (Supplementary Act 1976) (hereinafter) called ''the Act''), Autonomous Post-Graduate centres were established at Guntur, Anantapur and Warangal. The Executive Council is one of the authorities constituted by section 7 of the Act for the Post-Graduate Centres. u/s 9, the Executive Council shall be the Principal Executive body of the Post-Graduate centre, and the constitution of the Executive Council, the term of office of its members and its powers and functions shall be such as may be prescribed. Rules were framed in G. O. Ms. No, 718 Education (C) Department dated 23-7-1976. Rule 7 of the Rules, which provides for the constitution of the Executive Council and which is relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, reads as follows:-
"7. 1) The Executive Council shall consist of the following members, namely:-
EX-Officio:
The Vice-Chancellor of the University-Chairman.
The Director of the Post-graduate Centre-Vice-Chairman.
The Principals of the Post-graduate Centres,
Director of Higher Education,
Secretary to Government, Finance Department.
Secretary to Government, Education Department.
Four members to be nominated by the Chancellor of whom two shall be Members of the State Legislature and for Parliament.
One Professor each of the University and the Post-graduate Centre nominated by the Chancellor.
2) The term of office of the members of the Executive Council other than the ex-Officio members shall be for a period of three years from the date of constitution, but shall continue to hold office upto the date of the next reconstitution."
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (7) of rule 7 (1), the Chancellor of Sri Venkateswara University issued orders which were published in G.O. Ms. No. 894 Education (C) Department dated 18-9-1976 nominating the petitioner, Sri Ananta Venkata Reddy, Member of the Legislative Assembly and three others as Members of the Executive Council. According to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, the term of office of the members of the Executive Council other than the ex-officio members shall be for a period of three years from the date of constitution, but they shall continue to bold office upto the date of the next reconstitution. The Secretary to the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in his letter dated 29-5-1978 informed the Director, Post-graduate Centre, Anantapur that the Chancellor had nominated Sri B.T.L.N. Choudary, B.A., M.L.A,, Anantapur, and Sri Ibrahim Khan, B A, B.L, M.L.A., Kurnool (respondents 4 and 5 respectively) as members of the Executive Council in the place of Sri Anant a Venkata Reddy and Sri Somasekhar, who were not returned to the Assembly in the elections. The notification nominating the respondents 4 and 5 as members of the Executive Council was also published in the Gazette in G. O. Ms. No. 656 Education (W) Department dated 13-6-1978. The petitioner was informed by the Director of the Autonomous Post-graduate Centre, Anantapur by letter dated 24 7-1978 that in view of the letter received from the Secretary to Governor of Andhra Pradesh nominating the respondents 4 and 5 as members of the Executive Councils in the place of the petitioner and Sri Somasekbar, he was not sent notice of the meeting of the Executive Council held on 12-7-1978. The petitioner has thereupon filed this writ petition challenging the notification in G. O, Ms. No. 656 dated 13-6-1978 nominating respondents 4 and 5 as members of the Executive Council
Sri T. Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was duly qualified to be nominated as a member of the Executive Council at the time he was nominated in 1976 by the order notified in G. O. Ms. No. 894 dated 18-9-1976, and, therefore, he is entitled to continue lo hold the office for a period of three years from the date of constitution of the council or up to the date of re constitution of the council, and that though he ceased to be a member of the Legislative Assembly as he was not returned in the elections, that would not preclude him from continuing as a member of the Executive of the Council by virtue of the provisions rule 7 sub-rule (2).
On the other hand, it is contended by Sri A. Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel for respondent 2 that only a person who is a member of the State Legislative or Parliament can be nominated as a member of the Executive Council and the moment be ceases to be a member of the Legislative or Parliament, he also ceases to be a member of the council, and that the petitioner cannot continue to be a member of the council when the ceased to be a member of the State Legislature, The question for consideration is, whether a person who was a member of the State Legislature at the time of the nomination as a member of the Executive Council, can continue to be a member of the Executive Council after he ceased to be a member of the State Legislature. Clause (7) of the Rule 7 (1) provides for nomination of four members by the Chancellor, of whom, two shall be members of the State Legislature or Parliament. Under sub-rule (2) of rule 7, the term of office of the members of the Executive Council other than ex-officio member shall be a period of three years from the date of constitution but they continue to hold Office upto the dale of the next reconstitution.
From the foregoing provisions, it appears to me that the Chancellor could only nominate persons who are members of the State Legislature or Parliament, as members of the Executive Council. It is only by virtue of their being members of the Legislature or Parliament that they are eligible for being nominated as members of the Executive Council. The intention of the rule appears to be that out of the four members of the S ate Legislature or Parliament. It is the membership of the State Legislature or Parliament that is a condition precedent for the Chancellor nominating them as members of the Executive Council. The Chancellor has power to nominate only a member of the Legislative or Parliament as member of the Executive Council under clause (7) of rule 7 (1).
The provisions of clause (7) of the rule 7 (1) are mandatory and it categorically requires that the two members out of the four members to be nominated under the said clause shall be members of the State Legislature or Parliament. Unless the persons so nominated continue to answer the description of members of State Legislature or Parliament, they cannot hold office as members of the Executive Council, the nomination of two members of the Legislature or Parliament as members of the Executive Council is not a personal right but is a right attached to and depend ant upon their Membership of the State Legislature or Parliament. Clause (7) of rule 7 (1) requires that the Executive Council shall be composed of at least two members of the State Legislature or Parliament to be nominated by the Chancellor. If a member so nominated ceases to he a member of the State Legislature or Parliament, the constitution of the Executive Council will not satisfy the requirements of clause (7) of rule 7 (1). Therefore, the petitioner cannot. invoke the aid of sub rule (2) of rule 7 as enabling him to continue for the full period of three years or till the dale of reconstitution. Once the petitioner ceases to be a member of the State Legislature, he ceases to be a member of the Executive Council-Sri Bali Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention to the provisions of section 31 sub-section (3) of the Sri Venkateswara University Act, 1954, where it is expressly laid down that no member or an authority specified in sub-section (1) who is appointed or nominated in his capacity as the holder of a particular office shall continue to be a member of such authority on his ceasing to be the holder of the particular office, and contends that in the absence of a similar provision in the Andhra Pradesh University Act (Supplementary) Act, 1976 or the rules made thereunder the person nominated under clause (7) or rule 7 (1) continues to be the member of the Executive Council, though he ceases to be a member of the State Legislature. No doubt, it would have been better, had such a provision been made either in the Act or the Rules with which we are concerned in this case. Even otherwise, in my opinion the provisions of section 31 (3) of the Sri Venkateswara University Act expressly clarify the intention of the Legislature, and even in the absence of such a provision in the Act and the Rules with which we are concerned here, I think the same interpretation has to be put upon clause (7) of rule 7 (1). Under clause (7) of rule 7 (1), the members of the Legislature or Parliament are nominated to the Executive Council by virtue of such membership. Therefore, the moment their membership of the Legislature or Parliament comes to an end, their membership of the Executive Council should also come to an end.
For the foregoing reasons. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.