JUDGMENT
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. The petitioner who claims to be an eminent Orthopaedic Surgeon, was a member of the Syndicate of the 3rd respondent University of Mysore. He has filed this Writ Petition as a public interest litigation challenging the decision of the respondents to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on five eminent persons who are not impleaded as respondents in the Writ Petition. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the Syndicate of the University originally recommended to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on four eminent persons, two of the four names were deleted and three other names were added by the first respondent Chancellor of the University. It is contended that the first respondent has only the power either to approve or to disapprove the names recommended by the Syndicate and that he has no power to add any new name. According to the petitioner, the action of the first respondent in adding three names which were not recommended by the Syndicate is contrary to law.
2. It is seen from Annexure-‘B’ proceedings of the meeting of the Syndicate of the University held on 15.9.2006 that the Syndicate recommended four names for conferring Honorary Doctorate Degrees and authorised the second respondent Vice-Chancellor to send necessary proposal to the Chancellor in that regard. It is seen from Annexure-‘A’ letter dated 11.12.2006 from the Secretary to the Governor (Chancellor) to the Vice-Chancellor that His Excellency the Governor approved the proposal for conferring Honorary Doctorate Degrees on the five eminent persons mentioned in the letter. The first two names are names recommended by the Syndicate in Annexure-‘B’ proceedings. The other three names are new names. However, it is seen that Annexure-‘A’ letter from the Secretary to Governor to the Vice-Chancellor was in response to the letter dated 1.12.2006 from the University. The petitioner has not produced a copy of the said letter dated 1.12.2006. However, learned Government Advocate Sri. A.N. Venugopala Gowda has made available a copy of the said letter. The said letter dated 1.12.2006 shows that in continuation of the Vice-Chancellor’s discussion with the Chancellor, a final list of five eminent persons had been prepared for the award of Honorary Doctorate Degrees. The five names are mentioned in the letter dated 1.12.2006. The names mentioned in Annexure-‘A’ letter through which the approval of the Chancellor was conveyed, are the very same names mentioned in the University’s letter dated 1.12.2006. It is also seen that the Syndicate vide Annexure-‘C’ proceedings dated 16.122006, decided to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on four out of the five eminent persons mentioned in Annexure-‘A’ letter. The name of Sri. R.K. Narayan was not approved on the ground that Honorary Doctorate Degree had already been conferred on him by the University. It is proposed to confer the Honorary Doctorate Degrees on the four eminent persons during the Convocation scheduled to be held on 9.1.2007.
3. The facts mentioned above show that the assumption of the petitioner that the first respondent Chancellor added names contrary to the proposal or wish of the Syndicate of the University is not factually correct. They also show that the decision to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on the four eminent persons was ultimately taken by the Syndicate of the University with the approval of the Chancellor. The allegation that the Chancellor dictated the names to the Syndicate is factually incorrect and misconceived. It is clear that on the basis of the decision of the Syndicate contained in Annexure-B’ proceedings dated 15.9.2006, the matter was discussed by the Vice-Chancellor with the Chancellor and that in the light of the said discussion, the University sent the proposal vide letter dated 1.12.2006 to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on five persons. It was in response to the University’s letter dated 1.12.2006 that the Secretary to the Chancellor sent Annexure-‘A’ letter dated 11.12.2006 conveying the approval of the Chancellor for the proposal to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on the five personalities mentioned in Armexure-‘A’ letter. Thereupon, the Syndicate of the University met on 16.12.2006 and finally decided to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on four out of the five names mentioned in Annexure-‘A’ letter. The name of Sri. R.K. Narayan was excluded for the reason that Honorary Doctorate Degree had already been conferred on him by the University.
4. We do not find anything illegal or improper in the Vice-Chancellor, who was authorised by the Syndicate to send necessary proposal to the Chancellor, holding discussions with the Chancellor or consulting him on the proposal to confer Honorary Doctorate Degrees on the eminent persons suggested by the Syndicate. We also do not find anything illegal or improper in the Chancellor expressing his views on the proposed names or giving his advice or suggestions to the Vice-Chancellor/University during such consultations or discussions. There is also nothing wrong in the Syndicate of the University considering such advice or suggestions of the Chancellor and taking a decision respecting the views or advice of the Chancellor. On the other hand, the different authorities of the University have demonstrated then will to set and follow healthy practices and traditions in the administration of the University.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Section 12 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 2000 (for short the Act) which provides that the Governor of Karnataka shall by virtue of his office, he the Chancellor of the University, that he shall be the Head of the; University and shall when present, preside at any convocation of the University and that he shall have such other powers as may be conferred on him by or under the Act. Learned Counsel also referred to Section 28(3) of the Act which provides that the Chancellor or the State Government, may by order direct to hold the meetings to discuss such terms of reference as may be specified by them and the Vice-Chancellor shall comply with such directions. Learned Counsel also pointed out that under Section 29(2)(s) of the Act, the Syndicate shall have the power to confer Honorary degrees, lilies or other academic distinctions on the recommendation of the Academic Council. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to Section 69(1) of the Act which reads thus:
69. Honorary Degrees.- (1) If not less than two-thirds of the Members of the Syndicate recommend that an Honorary Degree or other academic distinction be conferred on any person on the ground that he is, in its opinion, by reason of eminent attainment and position, fit and proper to receive such degree or academic distinction, the Syndicate may recommend the same for the approval of the Chancellor for conferment of such degree on the person concerned.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure followed in this case is contrary to the above statutory provisions. We are not inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. The facts and circumstances stated earlier and the documents referred to above clearly indicate that Honorary Doctorate Degrees are being conferred on the four eminent persons on the basis of the decision of the Syndicate and the names of the said persons were duly approved by the Chancellor as required under the statutory provisions. The petitioner has no case that the four persons who are being conferred with the Honorary Doctorate Degrees are not eminent enough to receive Honorary Doctorate Degrees. His only allegation is that the Chancellor added names which were not recommended by the Syndicate. The statutory provisions referred to by the learned Counsel do not preclude the University or the Vice-chancellor from consulting the Chancellor on the names of persons on whom Honorary Doctorate Degrees are to be conferred. They do not preclude the Chancellor from expressing his opinion or giving his suggestions during such consultations. In our view, the entire scheme of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 assigns to the Chancellor a role which not only permits but also requires him to render advice and guidance to the University and to offer his suggestions on matters like this. The Chancellor is not a mere signing machine to approve every proposal of the Syndicate. He is not expected to act mechanically to grant or to refuse approval to the proposal of the Syndicate. There can be meaningful interaction and exchange of views between the Chancellor and the Syndicate. Such interactions and exchange of views will only facilitate smooth functioning of the University and increase the quality and credibility of the decisions of the University. It does not amount to interference with the power of the Syndicate. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent Chancellor has exceeded his right, power and jurisdiction is totally misconceived.
6. Even assuming that, being a former member of the Syndicate, the petitioner is interested in the proper functioning of the University and the compliance with statutory requirements, Ave do not find any valid reason to entertain this as a PIL, as the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing any injury to public interest. The two essential statutory requirements, namely (i) the decision of the Syndicate and (ii) the approval of the Chancellor, are satisfied in this case. Even the petitioner has no case that the four persons do not have the eminence to receive Honorary Doctorate Degrees from the third respondent University. The petitioner has no case that the two names originally proposed by the Syndicate were wrongly excluded or that they also should he conferred with the Honorary Doctorate Degrees. At any rate, the persons whose names have been excluded, have not come forward to challenge the exclusion of their names. In such circumstances, there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned decision.
7. In the above circumstances, we hold that there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is dismissed.