{"id":235104,"date":"1963-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963"},"modified":"2018-09-10T07:24:48","modified_gmt":"2018-09-10T01:54:48","slug":"the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963","title":{"rendered":"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 491, \t\t 1964 SCR (4) 576<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC. D. GOVINDA RAO AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/08\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  491\t\t  1964 SCR  (4) 576\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1980 SC2141\t (17)\n F\t    1990 SC1402\t (32)\n\n\nACT:\nWrits-Quo Warranto, Scope of-Appointment of Reader by  Board\nof Appointments of Mysore University-Constitution, Art. 226-\nJurisdiction of High Court to interfere.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  The  University  of Mysore, Appellant\t no.  1,  advertised\ninviting applications for 6 posts of Professors and 6  posts\nof  Rcaders.   Among  them  were  included  the\t post  of  a\nProfessor of English and of a Reader in English.  Candidates\nfor the post of Reader were required to possess (a) a  first\nor high second class Master's Degree of an Indian University\nin the subject; (b) a Research Degree of Doctorate  standard\nor  published work of a high standard and (c) experience  of\nteaching  post-graduate\t classes  for 10 years\tin  case  of\nProfessors  and 5 years in case of Readers.   Anniah  Gowda,\nappellant  no.\t2, was selected by a  Board  of\t Appointment\nwhich was constituted to examine the fitness of the  several\napplicants  and he was appointed a Reader in English in\t the\nCentral College, 'Bangalore.\n576\nC.   D. Govinda Rao, respondent, filed an application in the\nMysore\tHigh  Court under Art. 226 of  the  Constitution  in\nwhich  he  prayed  that a writ of  quo\twarranto  be  issued\ncalling\t upon  appellant  no. 2 to  show  cause\t under\twhat\nauthority  he was holding the post of a Reader\tin  English.\nHe  also prayed for a writ of mandamus or other\t appropriate\nwrit  or direction calling upon appellant no. 1\t to  appoint\nhim  Reader.   His contention was that\tthe  appointment  of\nAnniah\tGowda  was  illegal in the face\t of  the  prescribed\nqualifications.\nThe High Court set aside the appointment of Anniah Gowda  on\nthe  ground that he did not satisfy the first  qualification\nwhich  required\t \"that he must possess either a first  or  a\nhigh  second class Master's degree of an Indian\t University\"\nas he had secured just 50.2 per cent marks while the minimum\nrequired for a second class was 50 per cent.  As regards the\nsecond and third qualifications, the High Court did not make\na finding against Anniah Gowda.\t The appellants came to this\nCourt by special leave.\nHeld  : (i) The decision of the High Court was incorrect  in\nas  much as the High Court did not take\t into  consideration\nthe  Degree  of\t Master of Arts\t of  the  Durham  University\nobtained by Anniah Gowda.  It is true that Anniah Gowda\t did\nnot  possess  a\t high  second  class  degree  of  an  Indian\nUniversity but he did possess the alternative  qualification\nof  Master of Arts of a foreign University.  The High  Court\nwas  in error in issuing a writ of quo waranto quashing\t the\nappointment of appellant no. 2.\n(ii) Boards   of   appointments\t  are\tnominated   by\t the\nUniversities  and when,recommendations made by them and\t the\nappointments  following\t on them are challenged\t before\t the\ncourts,\t normally, the courts should be slow  to   interfere\nwith the opinions expressed by the experts unless there\t are\nallegations of malafides against them.\tNormally, it is wise\nand  safe for the courts to leave the decision\tof  academic\nmatters\t to experts who are more familiar with the  problems\nthey face than the courts generally can be.  What  the\tHigh\nCourt  should have considered in this case was\twhether\t the\nappointment  made  by  the Chancellor  had  contravened\t any\nstatutory  or binding rule or ordinance and while doing\t so,\nthe  High Court should have shown due regard to the  opinion\nexpressed by the Board of experts and its recommendations on\nwhich the Chancellor had acted.\t The High -Court should\t not\nhave thought that the Board was acting like a quasi judicial\ntribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision.  It\nshould\tnot have applied tests which are applicable  in\t the\ncase of writ of certian;\nThe  writ  of quo warranto gives the judiciary a  weapon  to\ncontrol\t the  executive from making appointments  to  public\noffice\tagainst\t law  and to protect a\tcitizen\t from  being\ndeprived  of public office to which he has a  right.   These\nproceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of\npublic office who might be\n577\nallowed\t to  continue  either with  the\t connivance  of\t the\nexecutive  or by the reason of its apathy.  Before a  person\ncan  effectively  claim a writ of quo warranto,\t he  has  to\nsatisfy\t the court that the office in question is  a  public\noffice and is held by a usurper without legal authority.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  417\t and
\n418 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nMarch 7, 1962, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
\n1197 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t  Daphtary,  Attorney-General  for  India,   B.\t  R.
\nEthira’ulu Naidu, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P.  L.
\nVohra, for the appellant (in G.A. No. 417\/63).
\nV. K. Govindara’ulu and R. Gopalakrishnan for the  appellant
\nin C.A.No. 418\/63.\n<\/p>\n
S.   K. Venkataranga Iyengar, I. B. Dadachanji O.C.  Mathur,
\nRavinder Narain, for respondents.\n<\/p>\n
August 26, 1963.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR J.–The petition from which these appeals  by
\nspecial\t leave\tarise  was filed  by  the  respondent,\tC.D.
\nGovinda Rao, in the Mysore High Court under art. 226 of\t the
\nConstitution.\tBy that petition, he prayed that a  writ  of
\nquo  warranto be issued, calling upon Anniah Gowda  to\tshow
\ncause as to under what authority he was holding the post  of
\na  Research  Reader  in\t English  in  the  Central  College,
\nBangalore.   He also prayed for a writ of mandamus or  other
\nappropriate writ or direction calling upon the University of
\nMysore\tto appoint him Research Reader in the scale  of\t Rs.
\n500-25-800.   His  case was that the appointment  of  Anniah
\nGowda to the post of Research Reader was illegal in the face
\nof  the prescribed qualifications and that he was  qualified
\nto  be\tappointed to that post.\t That is why he\t wanted\t the
\nappointment of Anniah Gowda to be quashed, and he asked\t for
\na  writ,  directing the University to appoint  him  in\tthat
\npost.\tTo  his\t petition, he impleaded\t the  University  of
\nMysore\tby its Registrar, and Anniah Gowda as  the  opposite
\nparty.\n<\/p>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
The  University\t of  Mysore and Anniah\tGowda  disputed\t the
\nvalidity  of  the claim made by the respondent.\t lie,  urged
\nthat Anniah Gowda was properly appointed Research Reader and
\nthat  the  contention made by the respondent that  the\tsaid
\nappointment was invalid was not justified.
\nOn these pleadings, evidence was led by both the parties  in
\nrespect\t of  their  respective contentions in  the  form  of
\naffidavits.  The High Court has held that the appointment of
\nAnniah\tGowda  was  invalid  and  so  it  has  quashed\t the
\nResolution of the Board of Appointment of the University  of
\nMysore\trecommending his appointment and his  directed\tthat
\nhis  appointment subsequendy made by the Chancellor  of\t the
\nUniversity  should be set aside.  The High  Court,  however,
\nrefrained  from granting the respondent a writ of  mandamus,
\ndirecting  his\tappointment to the said if  the\t appointment
\npost, because it took the view that even of Anniah Gowda was
\nset  aside,  it\t did not follow that  the  respondent  would
\nnecessarily  be\t entitled  to  that  post.   That  question,
\naccording  to the High Court, may have to be  considered  by
\nthe  University\t and the Board afresh.\tThe  University\t and
\nAnniah\tGowda, then, moved the High Court for a\t certificate
\nto  appeal  to\tthis Court against its\tjudgement,  but\t the
\napplication  was  rejected.  Thereupon\tthe  University\t and
\nAnniah\tGowda by separate applications moved this Court\t for
\nspecial\t leave, and on special leave being granted to  them,
\nthey  have brought the two present appeals before us  (Civil
\nAppeals\t 417  &\t 418  of 63).  In  this\t judgment,  we\twill
\ndescribe  the University and, Anniah Gowda as  Appellants  1
\nand 2 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that on 31st July 1959, appellant No. 1 published
\nan  advertisement calling for applications for sit posts  of
\nProfessors  and\t six posts of Readers.\t Amongst  them\twere
\nincluded the post of Professor of English and the Reader  in
\nEnglish.  The qualifications prescribed for these posts\t are
\nmaterial and it is convenient to set them out at this  stage
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Qualifications\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   A  First or High Second  Class  Master’s
\n\t      Degree   of   an\tIndian\tUniversity   or\t  an
\n\t      equivalent   qualification   of\ta    Foreign
\n\t      University in the subject concerned;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) A Research Degree of a Doctorate  Standard
\n\t      or published work of a high Standard;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      579<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (c)   Ordinarily,\t ten  years (not  less\tthan
\n\t      five years in any case) experience of teaching
\n\t      post-graduate classes and guiding research  in
\n\t      the case of Professors and at least five years
\n\t      experience  of.  teaching degree\tclasses\t and
\n\t      independent research in the case of Readers ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   The knowledge of regional language\tKan-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      nada    is   considered\tas    a\t   desirable
\n\t      qualification.   Preference will be  given  to
\n\t      candidates who have had experience in teaching
\n\t      and  organization\t of research and  have\talso
\n\t      done advanced research work.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  accordance with s. 26(2) of the Mysore  University\tAct,
\n1956  (No.  23\tof  1956), as it  then\tstood,\ta  Board  of
\nAppointments  was  nominated, consisting of  the  Vice-Chan-
\ncellor\tand two Specialists in English.\t  These\t Specialists
\nwere  Professor\t P. E. Dastoor of the Delhi  University\t and
\nProfessor  L. D. Murphy of Madras.  The posts  of  Professor
\nand Reader had been advertised in pursuance of a grant\tmade
\nto  appellant  No. 1 by the  University\t Grants\t Commission.
\nFour applications were received for the posts of  Professors
\nand Reader in English and these Applicants were\t interviewed
\nby  the Board on June 8, 1960.\tThe Board had the  advantage
\nof   consulting\t Professor  C.D.   Narasimhiah,\t  Principal,
\nMaharaja’s  College, Mysore.  After taking into account\t the
\nopinion\t  expressed   by  Prof.\t  Narasimhiah,\t the   Board
\nconsidered   the   academic  qualifications  of\t  the\tfour
\napplicants  and their performance at the interview and\tcame
\nto  the\t conclusion that none of them was fit enough  to  be
\nappointed a Professor under the U.G.C. Scheme in grade\t800-
\n1,250.\tAccordingly, the Board resolved that the said  posts
\nbe  kept  vacant for the present and  be  readvertised.\t  In
\nregard to the filling of the post of Reader under the U.G.C.
\nScheme\tin  the\t grade\tof  500-25-800,\t the  Board,   after
\nconsidering all aspects of the case, came to the  conclusion
\nthat appellant No. 2 was the most suitably qualified  person
\nand unanimously resolved that he be appointed Reader in\t the
\nsaid grade under the U.G.C. Scheme.  This report was in\t due
\ncourse\tapproved by the Chancellor on October 3,  1960,\t and
\nafter he was appointed to the post of Reader, appellant\t No.
\n2  assumed  charge  on October 31,  1960.   Meanwhile,\teven
\nbefore he assumed charge of his office, the
\n580<\/span>
\nrespondent  had\t filed his present petition on\tOctober\t 15,
\n1960, and he had claimed an injunction against appellant No.
\n1  from proceeding to fill the post, but since the post\t had
\nalready been filled up, he modified his claim and asked\t for
\na writ of quo warranto against appellant No. 2. That is\t how
\nthe main dispute which arose between the two appellants\t and
\nthe  respondent\t was  in  regard  to  the  validity  of\t the
\nappointment  of\t appellant No. 2 to the post  of  Reader  in
\nEnglish, and as we have already pointed out, the High  Court
\nupheld\tthe  contentions of the respondent and\tquashed\t the
\nappointment of appellant No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The  judgment of the High Court does not indicate  that\t the
\nattention  of  the  High Court was drawn  to  the  technical
\nnature of the writ of quo warranto which was claimed by\t the
\nrespondent  in the present proceedings, and  the  conditions
\nwhich had to be satisfied before a writ could issue in\tsuch
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
As Halsbury has observed*
\n“An  information  in the nature of a quo warranto  took\t the
\nplace of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against
\na  person who claimed or usurped an office,  ‘franchise,  or
\nliberty,  to,  inquire by what authority  he  supported\t his
\nclaim,\tin order that the right to the office  or  franchise
\nmight be determined:”\n<\/p>\n
Broadly\t stated,  the  quo  warranto  proceeding  affords  a
\njudicial  remedy  by which any person, who  holds  an  inde-
\npendent\t substantive public office or franchise or  liberty,
\nis  called  upon  to show by what right he  holds  the\tsaid
\noffice, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be
\nduly determined, and in case the finding is that the  holder
\nof  the\t office has no title, he would be ousted  from\tthat
\noffice by judicial order.  In other words, the procedure  of
\nquo  warranto  gives the judiciary a weapon to\tcontrol\t the
\nExecutive from making appointments to public office  against
\nlaw  and to protect a citizen from being deprived of  public
\noffice to which he has a right.\t These proceedings also tend
\nto  protect the public from usurpers of public\toffice,\t who
\nmight  be allowed to continue either with the connivance  of
\nthe Executive or by reason of its apathy.  It will, thus, be
\nseen  that before a person can effectively claim a  writ  of
\nquo
\n*Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol.  11, p. 145.\n<\/p>\n
581<\/span><\/p>\n
warranto,  he  has to satisfy the Court that the  office  in
\nquestion is a public office and is held by a usurper without
\nlegal  authority,  and\tthat inevitably would  lead  to\t the
\nenquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper
\nhas been made in accordance with law or not.\n<\/p>\n
In  the present case, it does not appear that the  attention
\nof  the Court was drawn to this aspect of the  matter.\t The
\njudgment  does not show that any statutory provision is\t for
\nrules  were placed before the Court and that in\t making\t the
\nappointment  of appellant No. 2 these  statutory  provisions
\nhad  been  contravened.\t  The matter appears  to  have\tbeen
\nargued\tbefore the High Court on the assumption that if\t the
\nappointment of appellant No. 2 was shown to be\tinconsistent
\nwith the qualification as they were advertised by  appellant
\nNo. 1, that itself would justify the issue of a writ of\t quo
\nwarranto.  In the present proceedings, we do not propose  to
\nconsider  whether this assumption was well founded  or\tnot.
\nWe propose to deal with the appeals on the basis that it may
\nhave  been open, to the High Court to quash the\t appointment
\nof  appellant  No. 2 even if it was shown that\tone  or\t the
\nother of the qualifications prescribed by the  advertisement
\npublished by appellant No. 1 was not satisfied by him.
\nRealising  the difficulty which he may have to face, Mr.  S.
\nK. Venkataranga lyengar for the respondent wanted to   raise
\nthe  contention that the appointment of appellant No. 2\t was
\nmade in contravention of the statutory rules and  ordinances
\nframed by appellant No. 1. He attempted to argue that he had
\nreferred  to the statutory rules and ordinances in the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tbut, unfortunately, the same had not been  mentioned
\nor discussed in the judgment.  We have carefully  considered
\nthe  affidavits\t filed by both the parties  in\tthe  present
\nproceedings, and we have no hesitation in holding that at no
\nstage it appears to have been urged by the respondent before
\nthe  High  Court that the infirmity in\tthe  appointment  of
\nappellant  No. 2 proceeded from the fact that the  statutory
\nrules  and  ordinances\tmade by\t appellant  No.1    had\t been
\ncontravened.   The  affidavit  filed by\t the  respondent  in
\nsupport of his petition merely described the appointment  of
\nappellant  No. 2 as being illegal, and\tsignificantly  added
\nthat the said appointment of appellant No. 2 and the failure
\nof the University to appoint the respondent,
\n582<\/span>
\nwere  illegal in the face of the prescribed  qualifications,
\nand these qualifications in the context undoubtedly referred
\nto the qualifications published in the notification by which
\nthe relevant post had been advertised.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that in one of the affidavits filed on behalf  of
\nappellant No. 1 reference was made to the rules framed under
\nthe Mysore University Act (No. 23 of 1956), and it was added
\nthat  the appointment to the post of Reader in question\t had
\nto be made in accordance with the regulations framed by\t the
\nUniversity  Grants  Commission\tunder s. 26  (1)(e)  of\t the
\nUniversity  Grants Commission Act, 1956.  This was  disputed
\nby  the respondent, and in that connection, he alleged in  a
\nvague manner that all the appointments made by appellant No.
\n1  were regulated by the ordinances and rules  framed  under
\nthe  Mysore  University\t Act.  Then,  he  alleged  that\t the
\nordinances  made  in  this regard by  the  Senate  in  their
\nmeeting\t held  on  August 19, 1959,  were  approved  by\t the
\nChancellor in his letter dated January\t22,   1960.   Having
\nmade these allegations, no attempt was\tmade  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt to produce these ordinances and\tto  show  when\tthey
\ncame into force.  It appears that the\tstatutory      rules
\nframed by appellant No. 1 under s. 26 (1)    received\t the
\napproval  of the Chancellor on January 22, 1960, but  we  do
\nnot know even today when they were published in the Gazette.
\nSimilarly,  the\t ordinances  framed  were  approved  by\t the
\nChancellor  on\tthe same day, but we do not know  when\tthey
\ncame  into  force.  The statutory rules,  thus,\t framed\t and
\napproved, come into force on the date of the publication  of
\nthe Mysore Gazette, and the ordinances come into force\tfrom
\nsuch date as the Chancellor may direct (vide s. 42(5) of the
\nMysore\tUniversity Act No. 23 of 1956).\t  Therefore,  though
\nsome  reference was made to the ordinances, no\tattempt\t was
\nmade  to  show when the ordinances came into  force  and  no
\narguments  appear to have been urged ,on that account.\t The
\njudgment  delivered  by\t the  High  Court  in  the   present
\nproceedings  is an elaborate judgment and we think it  would
\nbe  legitimate\tto  assume that it does\t not  refer  to\t the
\nstatutory  rules and ordinances for the simple\treason\tthat
\nneither\t party\trelied\ton them and the.   High\t Court\thad,
\ntherefore  no occasion to examine them.\t In any case, we  do
\nnot  think  it would be open to the respondent\tto  take  ;a
\nground about the effect of the statutory rules and ordi-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    583<\/span><\/p>\n
nances for the first time in appeal.  The petition, which he
\noriginally filed, when read with the affidavit made by\thim,
\ndoes  support  this view and unambiguously  shows  that\t lie
\nconfined his attack against the validity of the\t appointment
\nof appellant No. 2 solely to the ground that appellant No. 2
\ndid  not satisfy the qualification prescribed by  the  noti-
\nfications  by which applications had been called for by\t ap-
\npellant No. 1. That is the basis on which the High Court has
\ndealt  with  this matter and that is the basis on  which  we
\npropose to deal with it.\n<\/p>\n
Let  us briefly indicate the findings recorded by  the\tHigh
\nCourt before examining the merits of the contentions  raised
\nby the appellants in these appeals.  In this connection,  it
\nis necessary to recall the four qualifications prescribed by
\nthe  notification.  The last one which relates to the  know-
\nledge  of the Kannada language is not in dispute and may  be
\nleft out of consideration.  The first qualification is\tthat
\nthe  applicant\tmust  have a First or a\t high  Second  Class
\nMaster’s  Degree  of an Indian University or  an  equivalent
\nqualification  of a foreign University in the  subject\tcon-
\ncerned.\t  It appears that appellant No. 2 secured  50.2\t per
\ncent marks in his Master’s Degree examination.\tIt was urged
\nby  the\t respondent before the High Court that when  50\t per
\ncent is the minimum required for securing a second class, it
\nwould be idle to suggest that a candidate, who obtains\t50.2
\nper  cent, has secured a high Second Class Master’s  Degree,
\nand  so the respondent pleaded that the first condition\t had
\nnot  been satisfied by the appellant No. 2. The\t High  Court
\nhas   upheld   this   plea.   In  regard   to\tthe   second
\nqualification, it appears that appellant No. 2 has  obtained
\na Degree of Master of Arts of the University of Durham.\t The
\nHigh Court has held that in regard to this qualification, if
\nthe  Board took the view that the appellant No. 2  satisfied
\nthat  qualification, it would not be Just for the  Court  to
\ndiffer\tfrom that opinion.  In other words, the\t High  Court
\ndid not make a finding in favour of the respondent in regard
\nto   qualification   No.   2.  In  regard   to\t the   third
\nqualification,\tthe matter appears to have been\t debated  at
\nlength before the High Court.  Evidence was led by both\t the
\nparties and the respondent seriously disputed the claim made
\nby  both the appellants that appellant No. 2  satisfied\t the
\ntest of five years experience of teaching
\n584<\/span>
\nDegree\tclasses.  The High Court examined this evidence\t and
\nultimately  came to the conclusion that though the  material
\nadduced by the appellants on this point was  unsatisfactory,
\nit could not make a finding in favour of the respondent.  In
\nthis connection, the High Court has severely criticised\t the
\nconduct\t of  appellant No. 1 to which we will  refer  later.
\nThus, it is clear that substantially the High Court  decided
\nto  quash the appointment of appellant No. 2 on\t the  ground
\nthat  it  was  plain  that he  did  not\t satisfy  the  first
\nqualification.\tIn this connection, the High Court has\talso
\ncriticised  the\t report made by the Board and  has  observed
\nthat the Members of the Board did not appear to have applied
\ntheir  minds to the question which they were called upon  to
\nconsider.\n<\/p>\n
In  our opinion, in coming to the conclusion that  appellant
\nNo.  2\tdid not satisfy the first  qualification,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  is  plainly in error.  The judgment  shows  that\t the
\nlearned Judges concentrated on the question as to whether  a
\ncandidate obtaining 50 per cent marks could be said to\thave
\nsecured\t a  high Second Class Degree, and  if  the  relevant
\nquestion  had to be determined solely by reference  to\tthis
\naspect of the matter, the conclusion of the High Court would
\nhave  been  beyond reproach.  But what the  High  Court\t has
\nfailed\tto notice is the fact that the\tfirst  qualification
\nconsists of two parts-the first part is: a high Second Class
\nMaster’s Degree of an Indian University, and the second part
\nis: its equivalent which is an equivalent qualification of a
\nforeign University.  The High Court does not appear to\thave
\nconsidered   the  question  as\tto  whether  it\t  would\t  be
\nappropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of
\nthe  Board when it was quite likely that the Board may\thave
\ntaken  the  view that the Degree of Master of  Arts  of\t the
\nDurham\tUniversity. which appellant No. 2 had  obtained\t was
\nequivalent  to\ta high Second Class Master’s  Degree  of  an
\nIndian\tUniversity.   This aspect of the  question  pertains
\npurely\tto  an academic matter and  Courts  would  naturally
\nhesitate  to express a definite opinion, particularly,\twhen
\nit  appears  that the Board of experts\twas  satisfied\tthat
\nappellant No. 2 fulfilled the first qualification.  If\tonly
\nthe  attention\tof  the High court had\tbeen  drawn  to\t the
\nequivalent furnished in the first qualification, we have  no
\ndoubt  that it would not have held that the Board had  acted
\ncapriciously in: expressing the
\n585<\/span>
\nopinion\t  that\t appellant   No.   2   satisfied   all\t the
\nqualifications\tincluding  the first qualification.   As  we
\nhave  already  observed\t though the  High  Court  felt\tsome
\ndifficulty about the two remaining qualifications, the\tHigh
\nCourt  has not rested its decision on any  definite  finding
\nthat  these qualifications also had not been satisfied.\t  On
\nreading the first qualification, the position appears to  be
\nvery   simple;\tbut  unfortunately,  since  the\t  equivalent
\nqualification  specified  by  cl.  (a)\twas  apparently\t not
\nbrought\t to the notice of the High Court, it has  failed  to
\ntake that aspect of the matter into account.  On that aspect
\nof the matter, it may follow that the Master’s Degree of the
\nDurham University secured by appellant No. 2, would  satisfy
\nthe  first qualification and even the second.\tBesides,  it
\nappears\t that  appellant No. 2 has to his  credit  published
\nworks\twhich  by  themselves  would  satisfy\tthe   second
\nqualification.\t Therefore, there is no doubt that the\tHigh
\nCourt  was in error in coming to the conclusion\t that  since
\nappellant  No.\t2 could not be said to have secured  a\thigh
\nSecond Class Master’s Degree of an Indian University, he did
\nnot  satisfy  the  first qualification.\t It  is\t plain\tthat
\nMaster’s Degree of the Durham University which appellant No.
\n2 has obtained, can be and must have been taken by the Board
\nto  be equivalent to a high Second Class Master’s Degree  of
\nan Indian University, and that means the first qualification
\nis satisfied by appellant No. 2. That being so, we must hold
\nthat  the High Court was in error in issuing a writ  of\t quo
\nwarranto, quashing the appointment of appellant No. 2.
\nBefore\twe part with these appeals, however, reference\tmust
\nbe  made  to two other matters.\t In dealing  with  the\tcase
\npresented  before it by the respondent, the High  Court\t has
\ncriticised  the\t report made by the Board and  has  observed
\nthat  the  circumstances  disclosed by the  report  made  it
\ndifficult  for the High Court to treat\tthe  recommendations
\nmade  by  the experts with the respect that  they  generally
\ndeserve.  We are unable to see the point of criticism of the
\nHigh Court in such academic matters.  Boards of Appointments
\nare  nominated by the Universities and when  recommendations
\nmade  by  them and the appointments following on  them,\t are
\nchallenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow
\nto  interfere  with the opinions expressed by  the  experts.
\nThere is no allegation about mala fides against
\n38-2 S. C. India\/64
\n586<\/span>
\nthe  experts who constituted the present Board; and  so,  we
\nthink, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts  to
\nleave  the decisions of academic matters to experts who\t are
\nmore  familiar with the problems they face than\t the  courts
\ngenerally  can\tbe.  The criticism made by  the\t High  Court
\nagainst\t the report made by the Board seems to suggest\tthat
\nthe High Court thought that the Board was in the position of
\nan  executive authority, issuing an executive fiat,  or\t was
\nacting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes re-
\nferred to it for its decisions.\t In dealing with  complaints
\nmade by citizens in regard to appointments made by  academic
\nbodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be
\nreasonable  or appropriate.  In fact, in issuing  the  writ,
\nthe  High  Court has made certain  observations\t which\tshow
\n‘that the High Court applied tests ‘Which would legitimately
\nbe  applied  in\t the case of writ  of  certiorari.   In\t the
\njudgment,  it has been observed that the error in this\tcase
\nis  undoubtedly a manifest error.  That is  a  consideration
\nwhich is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ
\nof  certiorari.\t What the High Court should have  considered
\nis  whether  the  appointment made  by\tthe  Chancellor\t had
\ncontravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance,\t and
\nin doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard  to
\nthe opinions expressed by the Board & its recommendations on
\nwhich  the  Chancellor has acted.  In this  connection,\t the
\nHigh  Court has failed to notice one significant  fact\tthat
\nwhen  the  Board  considered the claims\t of  the  respective
\napplicants,  it\t examined them very carefully  and  actually
\ncame  to  the conclusion that none of them  deserved  to  be
\nappointed  a Professor.\t These recommendations made  by\t the
\nBoard clearly show that they considered the relevant factors
\ncarefully  and\tultimately  came  to  the  conclusion\tthat
\nappellant  No.\t2  should be recommended  for  the  post  of
\nReader.\t Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made
\nby the High Court against the Board and its deliberations is
\nnot justified.\n<\/p>\n
It  appears that the High Court was also  dissatisfied\twith
\nthe  conduct  of appellant No. 1 and its  officers,  and  in
\nfact,  while dealing with the question about the  length  of
\nthe  teaching experience of appellant No. 2, the High  Court
\nhas  observed  that “the material placed on record is  of  a
\ndoubtful nature characterised by a clear tendency
\n587<\/span>
\nto  mislead the Court, if not an actual attempt to  do\tso”.
\nThe  learned  Attorney-General\thas  complained\t that\tthis
\ncriticism is not justified.  In fact, after the judgment was
\npronounced,  an\t application was made to  the  same  learned
\nJudges\tto expunge the criticism made against appellant\t No.
\n1, and in support of this application, Mr. Ethirajulu Naidu,
\nwho  was  then the Advocate-General and who had\t argued\t the
\nmatter\tbefore\tthe High Court, made an\t affidavit,  showing
\nthat  appellant\t No.  1\t could not be  charged\twith  having
\nattempted  to mislead the High Court.  Even then,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  was  not\t fully\tsatisfied,  and\t so  in\t a  judgment
\ndelivered  by  it on the application  subsequently  made  to
\nquash  the  said observations, the learned  judges  observed
\nthat  they were willing to accept and did accept  the  assu-
\nrance  given by the learned Advocate-General that there\t was
\nno actual attempt made to mislead the Court.’ Even so,\tthey
\nheld that the material placed before the Court could or\t did
\nhave  a tendency to mislead, and that is the  opinion  which
\nthey  thought  even  after  hearing  the  learned  Advocate-
\nGeneral, was well founded, at any rate, not unwarranted
\nThis criticism has been made by the High Court because\twhen
\nan  affidavit  was filed before it by  Mr.  Thimmaraju,\t the
\nGazatted  Assistant of appellant No. 1, he produced on\tJune
\n1, 1961, a statement from the Service Register of  appellant
\nNo.  2. This extract purported to show that appellant No.  2
\nhad more than five years’ teaching experience prescribed  by
\nthe third qualification.  The Register was then sent for  by
\nthe  High  Court  and examined, and  it\t became\t clear\tthat
\nwhereas the first four entries in the statement filed by the
\ndeponent were borne out by the said Register, the subsequent
\neight  entries did not appear in that Register.\t Later\twhen
\nthe High Court was moved, after the judgment was pronounced,
\nfor  expunging the remarks, another document  was  produced.
\nThis  purported to be the gazetted Officers’  Register,\t and
\nthe statements contained in the extract filed by  Thimmaraju
\nappeared  in  that  Register.\tThe  explanation  given\t  by
\nAppellant  No. 1 and the learned Advocate-General  was\tthat
\nwhen appellant No. 2 was a non-gazetted servant, his service
\nregister  was separately kept; but in regard  to  Government
\ngazetted servants, a general service Register was kept,\t and
\nall the statements
\n588<\/span>
\nfiled  by Mr. Thimmaraju really contained facts\t taken\tfrom
\nthe separate service Register of appellant No. 2 when he was
\na non-gazetted servant, and facts taken from the  Government
\ngazetted  servants’  Register, after he\t became\t a  gazetted
\nservant.  It is undoubtedly true that the statement filed by
\nThimmaraju seems to suggest that all the facts stated in the
\nstatement  were gathered from service Register of  appellant
\nNo.  2,\t and  that,  strictly,\twas  not  accurate  at\tall.
\nTherefore,  on the inaccuracy of the statement made  by\t Mr.
\nTlimmaraju,  the  High Court would have\t been  justified  in
\nmaking\tan adverse comment; but in considering the  question
\nas to whether Thimmaraju or appellant No. 1 on whose  behalf
\nhe made the affidavit, attempted or intended to mislead\t the
\nCourt, it is necessary to bear in mind other relevant facts.
\nOn  the question about the length of the teaching career  of
\nappellant  No.\t2,  appellant  No. 2  had  made\t a  detailed
\naffidavit  on July 22, 1961.  In this affidavit, he had\t set
\nout  the  several teaching assignments he had held  and\t the
\nperiods\t during which he held them;, and these clearly\tshow
\nthat his teaching experience of the prescribed character  is
\nmuch  more than five years which is the minimum\t prescribed.
\nIt  is\tremarkable that though the respondent  purported  to
\nmake a rejoinder to the affidavit filed by appellant No.  2,
\nthe  details  given  by appellant No. 2\t in  regard  to\t his
\nteaching   experience\thave  not   been   specifically\t  or
\ncategorically  traversed by the respondent.  Besides, it  is
\nsignificant that the Government gazetted officers’ Register,
\nwhich was produced before the High Court later-, amply bears
\nout  the  facts\t in  the  statement  filed  by\t Thimmaraju.
\nTherefore,  one thing is clear that the material fact  about
\nthe length of the teaching experience of appellant No. 2  is
\nfully  established by the affidavit of appellant No,. 2\t and
\neven  by  the gazetted officers’ Register  which  was  later
\nproduced,  and so, it seems to us that the High\t Court\tneed
\nnot have been so severe on appellant No. 1 when it  observed
\nthat the material produced by appellant No. 1 had a tendency
\nto mislead the Court, if not an actual attempt to do so.  It
\nis undoubtedly true that Thimmaraju should have looked\tinto
\nthe  record  more carefully and should have  stated  clearly
\nthat  the  facts stated in the statement filed by  him\twere
\ntaken  partly  from  the  individual  service  register\t  of
\nappellant No. 2 and partly from the Register,
\n589<\/span>
\nwhich is kept as a general Register for gazetted servants in
\nthe  State.  Therefore, we think there is some substance  in
\nthe contention made by the learned Attorney-General that the
\nharsh criticism made by the High Court against appellant No.
\n1 is not fully justified.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeals are allowed, the. order passed by
\nthe  High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed  by
\nthe  respondent\t is dismissed with costs  throughout,  There
\nwill be one set of hearing fees in both the appeals filed by
\nthe two appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 491, 1964 SCR (4) 576 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: C. […]<\/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-235104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 - 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\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-10T01:54:48+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-10T01:54:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\"},\"wordCount\":4763,\"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\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\",\"name\":\"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-10T01:54:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 - 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\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-10T01:54:48+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963","datePublished":"1963-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-10T01:54:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963"},"wordCount":4763,"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\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963","name":"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-10T01:54:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-university-of-mysore-and-anr-vs-c-d-govinda-rao-and-anr-on-26-august-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The University Of Mysore And Anr vs C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr on 26 August, 1963"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/235104","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=235104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}