{"id":219058,"date":"1967-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967"},"modified":"2017-01-06T00:48:23","modified_gmt":"2017-01-05T19:18:23","slug":"dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 292, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 434<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. BOOL CHAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE CHANCELLOR, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/09\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  292\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 434\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1971 SC1828\t (5)\n RF\t    1971 SC2242\t (21)\n D\t    1992 SC1872\t (15,16)\n\n\nACT:\nKurukshetra  University\t Act,  1956,  Sch.   I\tCC.4(vi)   &\n(vii)--Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898--s. 14.\t  Chancellor\ngiven power to appoint Vice-Chancellor but not to  determine\nemployment--whether   such   power  implied  in\t  power\t  to\nappoint--Nature\t of  Vice-Chancellor's\t employment--whether\ncontractual--whether rules of natural justice required to be\nfollowed when determining his employment.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellant was a member of the Indian Administrative Ser-\nvice  in  the  Madhya Pradesh  Cadre  and  was\tcompulsorily\nretired\t from the Service for misconduct by an order of\t the\nPresident in February, 1963.  In June, 1965 he was appointed\nVice-Chancellor\t of the Kurukshetra University, by the\tthen\nChancellor  of\tthe University.\t On March 31, 1966  the\t new\nChancellor  who\t Was  in office at  the\t time,\tordered\t the\nsuspension  of the appellant from the office  of  Vice-Chan-\ncellor and also issued to him a notice to show cause why his\nservices I should not be terminated.  The appellant filed  a\npetition  in the High Court seeking a writ in the nature  of\nmandamus to quash the Chancellor's order of suspension.\t  In\nthe meantime the Chancellor passed an order on May 8,  1966,\nin  exercise of the power under Clause 4(vi). of Schedule  I\nto  the Kurukshetra University Act, 1956, read with s.14  of\nthe  Punjab  General  Clauses  Act,  1898,  terminating\t the\nservices  of  the  appellant  with  immediate  effect.\t The\nappellant  then\t amended his petition and sought a  writ  of\ncertiorari  to\tquash the order of May 8,  1966.   The\tHigh\nCourt rejected the petition.\nIn  appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of\t the\nappellant, inter alia, (i) that the Chancellor had no  power\nunder  the  Act or the Statutes to terminate the  tenure  of\noffice\tof a Vice Chancellor; and (ii) that  the  Chancellor\nwas bound to hold an enquiry in accordance with the rules of\nnatural\t justice before determining the appellant's  tenure,\nbut the appellant had not been given a proper opportunity to\nexplain\t why  his  services should not\tbe  terminated\tand,\nfurthermore,  the  Chancellor had taken\t into  consideration\nevidence which was not disclosed to the appellant.\nOn the other hand, it was contended for the respondent\tthat\nsince the claim for relief by the respondent was founded  on\nan alleged breach of contract, the remedy of the  appellant,\nif  any, lay in an action for damages and not in a  petition\nfor a high prerogative writ.\nHELD, dismissing the appeal:\n(i)The absence of a provision setting up the procedure for\ndetermining the employment of the Vice-Chancellor in the Act\nor the Statutes or Ordinances does not lead to the inference\nthat  the tenure of office of Vice-Chancellor is not  liable\nto be determined. [439H]\nA  power to appoint ordinarily implies a power to  determine\nemployment  and\t this rule is incorporated in  s.14  of\t the\nPunjab General Clauses Act I of 1898. [437H-438A]\nS.R. Tiwari v. District Board, Agra,<\/a> [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55\t and\nLekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N. M. Shah, Deputy  Custodian-<\/a>\ncum-Managing Officer, Bombay, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 120;  referred\nto.\n435\nAn  intention contrary to the rule was not evidenced  either\nby  the\t fact that under Clause 4(vii) of the  Statutes\t the\nappointment  of\t a  Vice-Chancellor is for  three  years  or\nbecause\t  there\t was  no  express  provision  covering\t the\ndetermination of service of a Vice-Chancellor for misconduct\nas there was in the case of teachers.  Clause 4(vii) of\t the\nStatutes does not purport to confer upon a person  appointed\nVice-Chancellor an indefeasible right to continue in  office\nfor three years; the clause merely places a restriction upon\nthe  power of the Chancellor, when fixing the tenure of\t the\noffice\tof  Vice-Chancellor.  It could not be  held  that  a\nperson\tappointed a Vice-Chancellor is entitled to  continue\nin office for the full period of his appointment even if  it\nturns  out that he is physically decrepit, mentally  infirm,\nor grossly immoral. [438E-F; 439G-H]\nS.14  of the General Clauses Act is a general provision:  it\ndoes  not  merely  deal\t with  the  appointment\t of   public\nservants.   It deals with all appointments, and there is  no\nreason\tto hold, having regard to the context in  which\t the\nexpression  occurs,  that the authority\t invested  with\t the\npower  of appointment has the power to determine  employment\nas a penalty, but not otherwise. [438G-H]\n(ii)The new Chancellor did issue a notice upon the appellant\nrequiring  him to show cause why the tenure of\this  service\nshould\t not  be  terminated  and  the\tappellant   made   a\nrepresentation\twhich  was  considered;\t the  appellant\t was\ninformed  of the grounds of the proposed termination of\t the\ntenure\tof his service and an order giving detailed  reasons\nwas  passed by 'the Chancellor.\t The High Court had  rightly\nheld  on  the  facts  that the\tappellant  had\tthe  fullest\nopportunity  of\t making\t his  representation  and  that\t the\ninquiry\t held by the Chancellor was not vitiated because  of\nany violations of the rules of natural justice. [443D; 446C]\n(iii) The power to appoint a Vice-Chancellor has its  source\nin the University Act: investment of that power carries with\nit the power to determine the employment but that power\t may\nnot  be exercised arbitrarily; it can be only exercised\t for\ngood cause, i.e. in the interests of the University and only\nwhen  it  is  found  after due\tenquiry\t held  in  a  manner\nconsistent  with  the  rules of natural\t justice,  that\t the\nholder\tof  the\t office\t is  unfit  to\tcontinue  as   Vice-\nChancellor. [441G]\nA.Francis v. Municipal Councillors of Kuala Lumpur, [1962] 3\nAll  E.R. 633; Barber v. Manchester Regional Hospital  Board\nand  Anr.,  [1958]  All E.R. 322;  Vidyodaya  University  of\nCeylon\tand Ors. v. Silva. [1964] 3 All E.R. 865;  State  of\nOrissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani,<\/a> [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625; Ridge v.\nBaldwin and Ors. [1964] A.C. 41; referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1967.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated October 19, 1966 of
\nthe Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 739 of of 1966.
\nN. C. Chatterjee, S. C. Agarwala, R. K. Garg, K.M.K. Nairand
\nL. M. Singhvi, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Niren  De, Additional Solicitor-General, Chetan\t Das  Dewan,
\nDeputy\tAdvocate-General for the State of Haryana and N.  H.
\nHingorani, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
436<\/span><\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah, J. The State of Madhya Pradesh held an enquiry against
\nthe  appellant\tDr.’  Bool Chand–a  member  of\t the  Indian
\nAdministrative Service-on charges of- “gross misconduct\t and
\nindiscipline”  in  respect of the conduct of  the  appellant
\nwhen he was Collector District Rajgarh.\t The Enquiry Officer
\nheld   that   in  recording   certain\tremarks\t  “regarding
\nassociation  of\t tile Commissioner of Bhopal with  one\tB.L.
\nGupta a pleader of Zirapur”, the appellant was “actuated  by
\nmalice”\t  and\this  conduct  “offended\t  against   official
\npropriety,  decorum and discipline”, and that the  appellant
\nhad  without  permission  removed a safe  from\tthe  Rajgarh
\nTreasury.  The President of India served notice upon the ap-
\npellant\t requiring  him to show cause against the  order  of
\ncompulsory  retirement\tproposed to be passed in  regard  to
\nhim.  The President also consulted the Union Public  Service
\nCommission.  The Union Put”,- Service Commission was of\t the
\nview  that  “in the light of the  findings  and\t conclusions
\nstated\tby them and having regard to all  the  circumstances
\nrelevant  to the case. the penalty of compulsory  retirement
\non  proportionate  pension  should  be\timposed\t upon”\t the
\nappellant.  and they advised the President accordingly.\t  By
\norder  dated February 28, 1963. the President directed\tthat
\nthe,  appellant\t be  compulsorily retired  from\t the  Indian
\nAdministrative Service with immediate effect.
\nIn March 1965 the appellant was appointed Professor and Head
\nof the Department of Political Science in the Punjab Univer-
\nsity.\tOn June 18, 1965, the appellant was appointed  Vice-
\nChancellor  of\tthe Kurukshetra University by order  of\t Mr.
\nHafiz Mohd Ibrahim-who was the Chancellor of the University.
\nAfter\tMr.Hafiz  Mohd.\t  Ibrahim  vacated  the\t office\t  of
\nChancellor  of the University, Sardar Ujjal Singh,  Governor
\nof  Punjab.  held the office of Chancellor.   On  March\t 31,
\n1966,  the  Chancellor Sardar Ujjal Singh ordered  that\t the
\nappellant  be Suspended from the office of  Vice-Chancellor,
\nand  by\t another  order\t the  Chancellor  issued  a   notice
\nrequiring  the appellant to show Cause why his\tservices  as
\nVice-Chancellor\t  of  the  Kurukshetra\tUniversity  be\t not
\nterminated.  The appellant submitted his representation, and
\nshortly\t thereafter  filed a petition in the High  Court  of
\nPunjab\tfor  a writ in the nature of mandamus  quashing\t the
\norder and the notice dated March, 31, 1966.  On May. 8, 1966
\nthe  Chancellor\t passed an order in exercise  of  the  power
\nunder  sub-cl. (vi) of cl. 4 of Sch.  1 to  the\t Kurukshetra
\nUniversity Act, 1956, read with s. 14 of the Punjab  General
\nClauses\t Act, 1898, terminating with immediate\teffect\t“the
\nservices”  of  the  appellant  “from  the  office  of  Vice-
\nChancellor of the Kurukshetra University”.  The petition was
\nthen  amended by the appellant. and a writ of certiorari  or
\nappropriate  writ  calling for the record and  quashing\t the
\norder  dated  May 8. 1966, terminating the services  of\t the
\nappellant  was\talso claimed.  The High Court  rejected\t the
\npetition filed by the appellant.  Against that
\n437<\/span>
\norder,\twith  certificate granted by the  High\tCourt,\tthis
\nappeal has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
The first argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that
\nthe  Chancellor\t had  no power to terminate  the  tenure  of
\noffice\t of   a\t Vice-Chancellor.   It\tis   necessary,\t  in
\nconsidering  the validity of that argument, to read  certain
\nprovisions of the Kurukshetra University Act 12 of 1956.  By
\ns. 4 the University is invested with the power, inter  alia,
\nto  do\tall such things as may be necessary,  incidental  or
\nconducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects  of
\nthe  University.  By s. 7. amongst others,  the\t Chancellor,
\nthe  Vice-Chancellor  and the Registrar are declared  to  be
\nofficers  of the University.  By s. 8 the powers, duties  of
\nofficers,  terms of office and filling of  casual  vacancies
\nare  to\t be  prescribed\t by  the  statutes.   Section  14(1)
\nprovides that the statutes in Sch.  I shall be the  statutes
\nof  the\t University and that the “Court\t of  the  University
\nshall have the power to make new or additional statutes\t and
\nto  amend or repeal the statutes.  By s. 21 it\tis  provided
\nthat  every salaried officer and teacher of  the  University
\nshall be appointed under a written contract, which shall  be
\nlodged\twith the University.  By cl. 4 of Sch.\tI the  Vice-
\nChancellor is declared the principal executive and  academic
\nofficer of the University, and also the ex-officio  Chairman
\nof  the\t Executive Council, the Academic  Council,  and\t the
\nFinance\t Committee,  and is invested with authority  to\t see
\nthat   the  Act.  the  Statutes,  the  Ordinances  and\t the
\nRegulations are faithfully observed, and to take such action
\nas  he deems necessary in that behalf.\tThe  Vice-Chancellor
\nis  also  authorised to exercise general  control  over\t the
\naffairs\t of  the  University  and  to  give  effect  to\t the
\ndecisions of the authorities of the University.\t Sub-clauses\n<\/p>\n
(vi) & (vii) of cl. 4 provide:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(vi)  The  ‘Upa-Kulapati’   (Vice-Chancellor)
\n\t      shall   be   appointed   by   the\t  ‘Kulapati’
\n\t      (Chancellor)  on\tterms and conditions  to  be
\n\t      laid by the ‘Kulapati’ (Chancellor).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii)  The  ‘Upa-Kulapati’   (Vice-Chancellor)
\n\t      shall  hold office ordinarily for a period  of
\n\t      three years which term may be renewed.’.’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From  -a  review of these provisions it is  clear  that\t the
\nVice-Chancellor\t is  an officer of the\tUniversity  invested
\nwith  executive\t powers\t set out in  the  Statutes  and\t his
\nappointment  is to be made ordinarily for a period of  three
\nyears  and  on\tterms  and  conditions\tlaid  down  by\t the
\nChancellor.\n<\/p>\n
There is no express provision in the Kurukshetra  University
\nAct  or\t the  Statutes\tthereunder  which  deals  with\t the
\ntermination of the tenure of office of Vice-Chancellor.\t But
\non  that  account we are unable to accept the  plea  of\t the
\nappellant  that\t the tenure of office of  a  Vice-Chancellor
\nunder the Act cannot be determined before the expiry of\t the
\nperiod\tfor  which  he is appointed.  A\t -power\t to  appoint
\nordinarily implies a power to determine the
\n438<\/span>
\nemployment.  In S. R. Tiwari v. District Boarel, Agra,(1) it
\nwas observed by this Court at p. 67:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Power  to appoint ordinarily carries with  it
\n\t      the  power  to, determine appointment,  and  a
\n\t      power  to\t terminate may in  -the\t absence  of
\n\t      restrictions express or implied be  exercised,
\n\t      subject  to the conditions prescribed in\tthat
\n\t      behalf,\tby   the  authority   competent\t  to
\n\t      appoint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A  similar  view was also expressed  in\t Lekhraj  Sathramdas
\nLalvani\t  v.  N.  M.  Shah,  Deputy   Custodian-cum-Managing
\nOfficer, Bombay<\/a> (2) . That rule is incorporated in s. 14  of
\nthe  Punjab  General Clauses Act I of  1898.   That  section
\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where, by any Punjab Act, a power to make any
\n\t      appointment  is  conferred,  then,  unless   a
\n\t      different\t intention  appears,  the  authority
\n\t      having  for the time being power to  make\t the
\n\t      appointment shall ‘also have power to  suspend
\n\t      or  dismiss  any person appointed\t whether  by
\n\t      itself  or  any  other  authority\t by  it\t  in
\n\t      exercise of that power.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Counsel for the appellant urged that since the general\trule
\nis   given a statutory form, the validity of the exercise of
\nthe power to   determine  the  tenure of the office  of\t the
\nappellant  must\t be found in s. 14 of  the,  Punjab  General
\nClauses Act.  Counsel says that s. 14 has no application  to
\nthe  interpretation  of\t the  Kurukshetra  University\tAct,
\nbecause cl. 4(vii) of the Statutes which prescribes that the
\nappointment  of a Vice-Chancellor shall ordinarily be for  a
\nperiod of three years discloses a different intention.\t But
\ncl. 4(vii) of the Statutes does not purport to confer upon a
\nperson\tappointed Vice-Chancellor an indefeasible  right  to
\ncontinue in office for three years: the clause merely places
\na restriction upon the power of the Chancellor, when  fixing
\nthe tenure of the office of Vice-Chancellor.
\nCounsel also urged that under s. 14 of the Act power to\t ap-
\npoint  includes\t power\tto dismiss,  but  not  to  determine
\nemployment.  In support of that contention he urged that  in
\nrelation  to the tenure of service of a public servant,\t the
\nexpression  “to\t dismiss”  has come  to\t mean  to  determine
\nemployment  as\ta measure of punishment.  But s. 14  of\t the
\nGeneral\t Clauses  Act is a general provision:  it  does\t not
\nmerely\tdeal  with the appointment of public  servants.\t  It
\ndeals with all appointments, and there is no reason to hold,
\nhaving regard to the context in which the expression occurs,
\nthat  the authority invested with the power  of\t appointment
\nhas the power to determine employment as a penalty, but\t not
\notherwise.   The  expression  “dismiss”\t does  not  in\t its
\netymological  sense necessarily involve any such meaning  as
\nis urged by counsel
\n(1)  [1964] 3 S.C.R. 55.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1966] 1 S.C.R. 120.\n<\/p>\n
439<\/span><\/p>\n
for  the  appellant.  The implication that  dismissal  of  a
\nservant\t involves determination of employment as  a  penalty
\nhas been a matter of recent development since the Government
\nof  India  Act,\t 1935, was enacted.   By  that\tAct  certain
\nrestrictions were imposed upon the power of the\t authorities
\nto  dismiss  or remove members of the civil  services,\tfrom
\nemployment.   There is no warrant however for assuming\tthat
\nin  the General Clauses Act, 1898, the expression  “dismiss”
\nwhich was generally used in connection with the\t termination
\nof appointments was intended to be used only in the sense of
\ndetermination of employment as a measure of punishment.
\nThe  expression “Punjab Act” is defined in s. 2(46)  of\t the
\nPunjab\tGeneral\t Clauses Act as meaning an Act made  by\t the
\nLieutenant  Governor  of  the Punjab in\t Council  under\t the
\nIndian Councils Acts, 1861 to 1909, or any of those Acts, or
\nthe  Government\t of  India  Act,  1915,\t or  by\t the   Local
\nLegislature  or\t the  Governor\tof  the\t Punjab\t under\t the
\nGovernment of India Act, or by the Provincial Legislature or
\nthe Governor of the Punjab, or by the Provincial Legislature
\nor  the\t Governor. of East Punjab under\t the  Government  of
\nIndia Act, 1935, or by the Legislature of Punjab Linder\t the
\nConstitution.  By s. 14(1) of the Kurukshetra University Act
\n12 of 1956, it was declared that on the commencement of\t the
\nAct,  the Statutes of the University shall be those  as\t set
\nout  in\t the Schedule 1. The Statutes  incorporated  in\t the
\nFirst Schedule were made by the Legislature and must for the
\npurpose\t of  s.\t 14 of the Punjab  General  Clauses  Act  be
\nregarded  as “Punjab Act”.  They do not cease to be  “Punjab
\nAct”  merely  because they are liable to be altered  by\t the
\nUniversity  Court in exercise of the power conferred  by  s.
\n14(2) of the University Act.\n<\/p>\n
It  was also urged that whereas provision was made by cl.  6
\nof  the\t Annexure to Ordinance XI that the services  of\t the
\ntea-hers  may  be  summarily determined\t on  the  ground  of
\nmisconduct, .here was no such provision for determination of
\nthe   employment  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  and\t that\talso
\nindicated an intention to the contrary within the meaning of
\ns.  14 of the Punjab General Clauses Act.  We are unable  to
\nagree with that contention.  It is true,. the office of\t the
\nVice-Chancellor\t  of   a   University  is   one\t  of   great
\nResponsibility and carries with it considerable prestige and
\nauthority.   But  we  are  unable  to  hold  that  a  person
\nappointed  a  Vice-Chancellor  is entitled  to\tcontinue  in
\noffice\tfor the full period of’ his appointment even  if  it
\nturns  out that he is physically decrepit, mentally  infirm,
\nor  grossly  immoral.\tAbsence of a  provision\t setting  up
\nprocedure  for\tdetermining  the  employment  of  the  Vice-
\nChancellor  in\tthe Act or the Statutes or  Ordinances\tdoes
\nnot, in our judgment, lead to the inference that the  tenure
\nof office of Vice-Chancellor is not liable to be determined.
\nThe  first  contention raised by counsel for  the  appellant
\nmust therefore fail.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t then urged by counsel for the\tappellant  that\t the
\nChancellor  was\t bound\tto  hold  an  enquiry  against\t the
\nappellant before
\n440<\/span>
\ndetermining  his  tenure, and the enquiry must\tbe  held  in
\nconsonance   with  the\trules  of  natural   justice.\t The
\nAdditional Solicitor-General submitted that since the  claim
\nfor relief by the appellant was founded on an alleged breach
\nof contract, the remedy of the appellant, if any, lay in  an
\naction\tfor  damages,  and  not in a  petition\tfor  a\thigh
\nprerogative writ.  The Additional Solicitor-General  invited
\nour attention to the averments made in the petition filed by
\nthe  appellant that the Chancellor “was bound by the  letter
\nof  appointment which created a tenure of office  for  three
\nyears”\tand  which  the Chancellor  could  not\tunilaterally
\ndetermine in the purported exercise of an assumed power, and
\nthat  in any event no such circumstances had been  disclosed
\nwhich would entitle the Chancellor to avoid the contract  of
\nservice\t which was binding on the University, and  submitted
\nthat since it was the appellant’s case that his\t appointment
\nas   Vice-Chancellor   was  purely  contractual,   and\t the
\nChancellor  had\t no  power  unilaterally  to  determine\t the
\ncontract,  no relief of declaration about the invalidity  of
\nthe  order of the Chancellor may be granted in\texercise  of
\nthe jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative
\nwrits,\tand the only remedy which the appellant is  entitled
\nto  claim is compensation for breach of contract, in  action
\nin a Civil Court.\n<\/p>\n
It is true, as pointed out by the Judicial Committee of\t the
\nPrivy  Council\tin A. Francis v.  Municipal  Councillors  of
\nKuala\tLumpur(1),  that  when\tthere  has  been   purported
\ntermination of a contract of service, a declaration that the
\ncontract of service still subsisted would rarely be made and
\nwould  not be made in the absence of special  circumstances,
\nbecause\t of  the  principle that the  Courts  do  not  grant
\nspecific performance of contracts of service.  The same view
\nwas  expressed\tin Barber v.  Manchester  Regional  Hospital
\nBoard  and Anr(2) and in Vidyodaya University of Ceylon\t and
\nOrs. v. Silva(3).  In these cases the authority appointing a
\nservant\t was acting in exercise of statutory  authority\t but
\nthe  relation between the person appointed and the  employer
\nwas  contractual, and it was held that the relation  between
\nthe  employer and the person appointed being that of  master
\nand  servant, termination of relationship will\tnot  entitle
\nthe  servant to a declaration that- his employment  bad\t not
\nbeen validly determined.\n<\/p>\n
If  the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor gave rise to\t the
\nrelation  of  master and servant governed by  the  terms  of
\nappointment,  in the absence of special\t circumstances,\t the
\nHigh  Court would relegate a party complaining\tof  wrongful
\ntermination Of the contract to a suit for compensation,\t and
\nwould  not  exercise  its  jurisdiction\t to  issue  a\thigh
\nprerogative  writ  compelling the University to\t retain\t the
\nservices of the Vice-Chancellor whom the University does not
\nwish to retain in service.  But the office of a
\n(1) [1962] 3 All E.R. 633.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1958] 1 All E.R. 322
\n(3) [1964] 3 All E.R. 865.\n<\/p>\n
441<\/span><\/p>\n
Vice-Chancellor is created by the University Act: and by his
\nappointment  the Vice-Chancellor is invested with  statutory
\npowers\tand authority under the Act.  The petition filed  by
\nhe  appellant  in  the High Court is  a\t confused  document.
\nThereby\t the appellant did plead that the  relation  between
\nhim and the University was contractual, but that was not the
\nwhole  pleading.   The\tappellant also\tpleaded,  with\tsome
\ncircumlocution that since he was appointed to the office, of
\nVice-Chancellor which is created by the Statute, the  tenure
\nof  his appointment could not be determined  without  giving
\nhim an opportunity to explain why his appointment should not
\nbe  terminated.\t  The University Act, the Statutes  and\t the
\nOrdinances  do\tnot  lay down the conditions  in  which\t the
\nappointment  of the Vice-Chancellor may be  determined,\t nor
\ndoes the Act prescribe any limitations upon the exercise  of
\nthe  power  of the Chancellor to determine  the\t employment.
\nBut once the appointment is made in pursuance of a  Statute,
\nthough\tthe  appointing\t authority  is\tnot  precluded\tfrom
\ndetermining  the employment, the decision of the  appointing
\nauthority  to  terminate the appointment may be\t based\tonly
\nupon  the result of an enquiry held in a  manner  consistent
\nwith the basic concept of justice and fairplay.\t This  Court
\nobserved in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani<\/a>(1) -it p.
\n1271:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is  one of the fundamental rules  of\t our
\n\t      constitutional  set-up that every\t citizen  is
\n\t      protected\t  against  exercise   of   arbitrary
\n\t      authority by the State or its officers.\tDuty
\n\t      to act judicially would, therefore, arise from
\n\t      the  every nature of the function intended  to
\n\t      be  performed,  it  need not be  shown  to  be
\n\t      super-added.  If there is power to decide\t and
\n\t      determine\t to the prejudice of a person,\tduty
\n\t      to act judicially is implicit in the  exercise
\n\t      of  such power.  If the essentials of  justice
\n\t      be ignored and an order to the prejudice of  a
\n\t      person is made, the order is a nullity.\tThat
\n\t\t\t    is\ta  basic  concept of the rule  of
\n law  and
\n\t      importance thereof transcends the significance
\n\t      of a decision in any particular case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The power to appoint a Vice-Chancellor has its source in the
\nUniversity Act: investment of that power carries with it the
\npower to determine the employment; but the power is  coupled
\nwith  duty.  The power may not be exercised arbitrarily,  it
\ncan be only exercised, for good cause, i.e. in the interests
\nof  the\t University  and only when it  is  found  after\t due
\nenquiry held in manner consistent with the rules of  natural
\njustice, that the bolder of the office is unfit to  continue
\nas Vice-Chancellor.\n<\/p>\n
In Ridge v. Baldwin and Others(1) a chief constable who\t was
\nsubject\t to the Police Acts and Regulations was, during\t the
\npendency  of  certain criminal proceedings in which  he\t was
\narrested
\n(1)   [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1964] A.C. 41.\n<\/p>\n
442<\/span><\/p>\n
and charged together with other persons, with conspiracy  to
\nobstruct  the course of justice, was suspended from duty  by
\nthe  borough  watch  committee.\t  The  chief  constable\t was
\nacquitted  by the jury on the criminal charges\tagainst\t him
\nand  he applied to be reinstated.  The watch committee at  a
\nmeeting decided that the chief constable had been  negligent
\nin the discharge of his duties and in purported exercise  of
\nthe powers conferred on them by S. 191(4) of the Act of 1882
\ndismissed   him\t from  office.\t No  specific\tcharge\t was
\nformulated against him, but the watch committee in  arriving
\nat their decision, considered his own statements in evidence
\nand the observations made by the Judge who acquitted him. in
\nsupport\t of  the order of dismissal.   The  chief  constable
\nappealed  to  the  Home Secretary who held  that  there\t was
\nsufficient  material  on  which the  watch  committee  could
\nproperly exercise their power of dismissal under s.  191(4).
\nThe  decision  of  the Home Secretary  was  made  final\t and
\nbinding\t on  the parties by s. 2(3) of the,  Police  Appeals
\nAct,  1927.  The chief constable then commenced’  an  action
\nfor  a\tdeclaration that the purported\ttermination  of\t his
\nappointment as chief constable was illegal, ultra vires\t and
\nvoid,,\tand for payment of salary.  The action was taken  in
\nappeal\tto  the House of Lords.\t The House  of\tLords  (Lord
\nEvershed  dissenting)  held that the decision of  the  watch
\ncommittee to dismiss the chief constable was null and  void,
\nand  that accordingly notwithstanding that the\tdecision  of
\nthe  Home  Secretary  was  made final  and  binding  on\t the
\nparties,  that\tdecision  could not  give  validity  to\t the
\ndecision  of the watch committee.  Lord Reid observed at  p.
\n65:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “So   I  shall  deal  first  with\t  cases\t  of
\n\t      dismissal.   These appear to fall\t into  three
\n\t      classes: dismissal of a servant by his master,
\n\t      dismissal\t from office held  during  pleasure,
\n\t      and dismissal from an office where there\tmust
\n\t      be  something  against a man  to\twarrant\t his
\n\t      dismissal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The law regarding master and servant is not in
\n\t      doubt.   There cannot be specific\t performance
\n\t      of  contract  of service, and the\t master\t can
\n\t      terminate the contract with his servant at any
\n\t      time  and for any reason or for none.  But  if
\n\t      he  does so in a manner not warranted  by\t the
\n\t      contract\the  must pay damages for  breach  of
\n\t      contract.\t  So the question in a pure case  of
\n\t      master  and servant does not at all depend  on
\n\t      whether  the master has beard the\t servant  in
\n\t      his  own\tdefence: it depends on\twhether\t the
\n\t      facts  emerging at the trial prove  breach  of
\n\t      contract.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Then there are many cases where a man holds an
\n\t      office  at  pleasure.  Apart from\t judges\t and
\n\t      others  whose tenure of office is governed  by
\n\t      statute,\tall  servants and  officers  of\t the
\n\t      Crown  hold office at pleasure, and  this\t has
\n\t      been  held even to apply to a  colonial  judge
\n\t      (Terrell\t v.  Secretary\tof  State  for\t the
\n\t      Colonies\t(1952) 2 Q.B. 482).  It\t has  always
\n\t      been held, I think rightly, and the reason  is
\n\t      clear.   As  the person having  the  power  of
\n\t      dismissal need
\n443<\/span>
\n.lm15
\nnot have anything against the officer, he need not give\t any
\nreasons.\n<\/p>\n
So  I  come to the third class, which includes\tthe  present
\ncase.\tThere  I find an unbroken line of authority  to\t the
\neffect that an officer cannot lawfully be dismissed  without
\nfirst  telling him what is alleged against him\tand  hearing
\nhis defence or explanation.”\n<\/p>\n
The  case  of  the appellant falls within  the\tthird  class
\nmentioned  by Lord Reid, and the tenure of his office  could
\nnot  be interrupted without first informing him of what\t was
\nalleged against him and without giving him an opportunity to
\nmake his defence or explanation.\n<\/p>\n
The  Chancellor Sardar Ujjal Singh did issue a\tnotice\tupon
\nthe appellant requiring him to show cause why the tenure  of
\nhis service should not be terminated.  The appellant made  a
\nrepresentation\twhich  was considered, and  his\t tenure\t was
\ndetermined because in the view of the Chancellor it was\t not
\nin  the\t public interest to retain the\tappellant  as  Vice-
\nChancellor.   The appellant was informed of the\t grounds  of
\nthe proposed termination of the tenure of his office and  an
\norder giving detailed reasons was passed by the Chancellor.
\nBut  the  appellant  contended\tthat  in  arriving  at\t his
\ndecision. the Chancellor misread the order of the  President
\nand took into consideration evidence which was not disclosed
\nto  the\t appellant, and failed to consider evidence  in\t his
\nfavour which was on the, record.  It is true that the  order
\nof  the\t President  only  recites  that\t the  appellant\t was
\ncompulsorily  retired  as an officer of the  Madhya  Pradesh
\nCadre  of  the Indian Administrative Service:  it  does\t not
\nexpressly state that the order of compulsory retirement\t was
\nimposed\t as  a penalty.\t But a review  of  the\tdisciplinary
\nproceedings  against the appellant which culminated  in\t the
\norder of the President leaves no room for doubt.  The  order
\nof compulsory retirement was passed against the appellant as
\na penal order.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  no substance in the plea that the  order  of\t the
\nChancellor   was   vitiated,   since   the   Chancellor\t  in
\nascertaining the true. effect of the order of the  President
\ntook   into  consideration  a  letter  from  the   Secretary
\n(Services), Government of India, Ministry of’ Home  Affairs,
\ndated May 6, 1966.  The letter which has been set out in the
\norder of the Chancellor merely catalogues the various, steps
\ntaken by the different authorities which considered the case
\nof  the appellant before the order of compulsory  retirement
\nof the appellant from the Indian Administrative Service\t was
\npassed\tby  the\t President.  That  letter  contains  no\t new
\nmaterial.\n<\/p>\n
The  plea  that the -Chancellor was influenced\tby  evidence
\nwhich  was  not disclosed to the appellant is  also  without
\nsubstance.\n<\/p>\n
444<\/span><\/p>\n
It appears that before he passed the order of suspension the
\nChancellor  had received letter from Prof.  D.C. Sharma\t and
\nDr. A. C. Joshi in answer to enquiries made by him  relating
\nto the circumstances in which the appellant was appointed to
\nthe post of Professor of Political Science in the University
\nof  Punjab,  and  these letters were not  disclosed  to\t the
\nappellant.   Counsel  for  the\tappellant  says\t that  these
\nletters\t indicate  that\t the  University  authorities  fully
\nknowing that the appellant was compulsorily retired from the
\nIndian\tAdministrative Service, appointed him as  Vice-Chan-
\ncellor.\t  But  the appellant did not specifically  plead  or
\nmake  out  the\tcase that the  Chancellor  Mr.\tHafiz  Mohd.
\nIbrahim\t  was  made  aware  of\tthe  order   of\t  compulsory
\nretirement.   The Chancellor Sardar Ujjal Singh\t in  passing
\nthe  impugned  order considered the grounds set\t up  in\t the
\nrepresentation\tand  then  posed the  question\twhether\t his
\npredecessor in office, when he made the appointment -of\t the
\nappellant was aware of the fact that the appellant had\tbeen
\ncompulsorily  retired  as a measure of punishment  from\t the
\nIndian\tAdministrative Service, and came to  the  conclusion
\nthat  there  was nothing to show that he–Mr.\tHafiz  Mohd.
\nIbrahim-was aware of the order of compulsory retirement.  In
\nparagraph  .13\tof his -order, the Chancellor  Sardar  Ujjal
\nSingh observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “At  the\ttime  of his  appointment  as  Vice-
\n\t      Chancellor,   the\t fact  of   his\t  compulsory
\n\t      retirement was not known to the Chief Minister
\n\t      or the then Chancellor.  The alleged knowledge
\n\t      of  the fact of compulsory retirement  on\t the
\n\t      part  of\tthe Chief Minister, Cabinet  or\t the
\n\t      previous Chancellor is, therefore, without any
\n\t      basis.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Unless\the was moved in that behalf by the appellant it\t was
\nnot the duty of the Chancellor Sardar Ujjal Singh, before he
\npassed\tthe  order  against the\t appellant  determining\t the
\ntenure\tof  his appointment, to enquire of Mr.\tHafiz  Mohd.
\nIbrahim\t who  passed -the order of appointment\tand  of\t the
\nChief Minister, Punjab, whether they had come to know of the
\norder  of the President.  In the petition filed\t before\t the
\nHigh Court the petitioner merely averred in ground (iv)\t (d)
\nthat “the order of the Chancellor was vitiated, inter  alia,
\nbecause\t the Chancellor had without any material come  to  a
\nconclusion  that there was no basis to allege  knowledge  of
\nthe  fact of compulsory retirement on the part of the  Chief
\nMinister or the Cabinet or the previous Chancellor”: he\t did
\nnot  set  up the case that the\tChancellor  had\t information
\nabout  the order of the President.  His principal  plea\t was
\nthat  he  was under no obligation to disclose  that  he\t was
\ncompulsorily retired from the Indian Administrative Service.
\nIn the affidavit filed by Sardar Ujjal Singh, the  assertion
\nmade in ground (iv) (d) is denied.  Affidavits of Mr.  Hafiz
\nMohd.  Ibrahim and Mr. Ram Kishan.  Chief Minister.  Punjab,
\nwere  also filed before the High Court. and it\twas  averred
\nthat  neither of them knew at the time when the\t appointment
\nwas made that the appellant bad been compulsorily retired by
\nthe President from the Indian Administrative Service.\n<\/p>\n
445<\/span><\/p>\n
Mr.   Hafiz  Mohd.   Ibrahim  further  averred\tthat   “this
\ninformation  did  not  also come to his notice\tso  long  he
\nremained Chancellor of the Kurukshetra University”, and that
\nif  the fact of compulsory retirement of the appellant as  a
\npenalty had been within his know-. ledge, he would not\thave
\nappointed the appellant as Vice-Chancellor.  Even after\t the
\naffidavits  by Mr. Hafiz Mohd.\tIbrahim and Mr.\t Ram  Kishan
\nwere  filed,  the appellant by his  supplementary  affidavit
\nwhich was filed on July 27, 1966, did not contend that,\t Mr.
\nHafiz  Mohd.  Ibrahim or the Chief Minister had\t information
\nabout  the  determination of his employment  in\t the  Indian
\nAdministrative\tService.  His plea was that the\t members  of
\nthe  syndicate.\t the  members of the senate  and  the  Vice-
\nChancellor  of\tthe Punjab University  had  knowledge  about
\ndetermination  of  his employment. when\t lie  was  appointed
\nProfessor of Political Science; and that plea. we agree with
\nthe High Court, was wholly irrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
It  is true that the Chancellor in his order  recorded\tthat
\nMr. Hafiz Mohd.\t Ibrahim did not know at the time of  making
\nthe  appointment  of the appellant to the  office  of  Vice-
\nChancellor that he was compulsorily retired from the  Indian
\nAdministrative\tService.  But no inference arises  therefrom
\nthat Sardar Ujjal Singh before he passed the orders made any
\nenquiries or had access to evidence which was not  disclosed
\nto  the appellant.  We are unable to agree with counsel\t for
\nthe appellant that before a conclusion could be recorded, it
\nwas  the  duty of Sardar Ujjal Singh to ascertain  from\t Mr.
\nHafiz  Mohd.  Ibrahim and Mr. Ram Kishan whether  they\twere
\naware before the appellant was appointed Vice-Chancellor  of
\nthe order passed by the President.  The Chancellor, Sardara
\nUjjal  Singh.  was, in Our judgment,  under  no\t obligation.
\nunless moved by the appellant, to hold such enquiry.  It was
\nfor  the  appellant to take up the defence  that  Mr.  Hafiz
\nMohd.\tIbrahim was informed of the order of  the  President
\nand  to take steps to prove that fact.\tHe did not  take  up
\nthat defence, and he cannot no,,\\ seek to make out the\tcase
\nthat  the order was vitiated because the  Chancellor  Sardar
\nUjjal Singh did not make an enquiry which the Chancellor was
\nnever  asked to make.  The reference to the letter of  Prof.
\nD.  C. Sharma in the order of the Chancellor has no  bearing
\neither\ton the true effect of the order of the President  or
\non the question whether the Chancellor was cognizant of\t the
\norder passed by the President.\n<\/p>\n
The argument that when considering the letter of Prof.\tD.C.
\nSharma,\t the  Chancellor  should have  also  considered\t the
\nletter of Dr. A.C. Joshi requires no serious  consideration.
\nThe letters of Prof.  D. C. Sharma and Dr. A. C. Joshi\tare.
\nin  our\t judgment.  irrelevant in  considering\twhether\t the
\nChancellor  Mr. Hafiz Mohd.  Ibrahim was aware of the  order
\npassed\tby  the\t President.  It is impossible  to  raise  an
\ninference  that\t because  the order  of\t the  President\t was
\ngazetted  and  certain members of the syndicate\t and  senate
\nwere  aware of tile order of the President,  knowledge\tmust
\nalso be attributed to the Chancellor.\n<\/p>\n
446<\/span><\/p>\n
The proceeding resulting in the order passed by the Chancel-
\nlor does not suffer from any such infirmity as would justify
\nthis Court in holding that the rules of natural justice were
\nnot  complied with.  It is unnecessary in the  circumstances
\nto   consider  the  argument  advanced\tby  the\t  Additional
\nSolicitor-General that even if Mr. Hafiz Mohd.\tIbrahim\t was
\naware  of  the\torder  passed  by  the\tPresident   ordering
\ncompulsory  retirement\tof  the appellant  from\t the  Indian
\nAdministrative\tService, it was still open to his  successor
\nSardar Ujjal Singh to determine the tenure of office of\t the
\nappellant  as Vice-Chancellor, if in his view  it  appeared,
\nhaving regard to the antecedents of the appellant, that\t the
\nappellant was unfit to continue as Vice-Chancellor.
\nWe  agree  with the High Court that. the appellant  had\t the
\nfullest\t opportunity of making his representation  and\tthat
\nthe enquiry held by the Chancellor was not vitiated  because
\nof violation of the rules of natural justice.
\nIn the very scheme of our educational set-up at the  Univer-
\nsity  level,  the post of Vice-Chancellor is of\t very  great
\nimportance,  and  if the Chancellor was of the\tview,  after
\nmaking due enquiry, that a person of the antecedents of\t the
\nappellant was unfit to continue as Vice-Chancellor, it would
\nbe  impossible,\t unless the plea that the  Chancellor  acted
\nmaliciously or for a collateral purpose is made out, for the
\nHigh Court to declare that order ineffective.  The plea that
\nthe  Chancellor\t acted\tmala fide was raised,  but  was\t not
\npressed before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal therefore fails.  There will be no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R. K. P. S.\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n447<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 292, 1968 SCR (1) 434 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: DR. BOOL CHAND Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CHANCELLOR, KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/09\/1967 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SIKRI, S.M. SHELAT, J.M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra ... on 4 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra ... on 4 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-05T19:18:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-05T19:18:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\"},\"wordCount\":5160,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\",\"name\":\"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra ... on 4 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-05T19:18:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra ... on 4 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra ... on 4 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-05T19:18:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967","datePublished":"1967-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-05T19:18:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967"},"wordCount":5160,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967","name":"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra ... on 4 September, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-05T19:18:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-bool-chand-vs-the-chancellor-kurukshetra-on-4-september-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Bool Chand vs The Chancellor, Kurukshetra … on 4 September, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}