TMI Blog1954 (1) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was fixed for the 19th and the viva voice for the 20th. 4. At 7 o'clock on the morning of the 9th, before the examination began, a member of the Senate was told that there had been a leakage of the questions and he was given a paper which was entitled hints . He at once contacted three other members of the Senate and handed over copies of these hints to them. The three members were Mr. Justice Jagannadhadas, Mr. Pradhan, the Director of Public Instruction in Orissa, and Mr. Lingaraj Misra, the Minister for Education. The Vice-Chancellor was not informed at the time and no further action was taken. The examination proceeded as scheduled on the dates fixed. 5. The Vice-Chancellor was informed on the 19th. He at once asked Lt. Col. Papatla, the Principal of the Medical College, to look into the matter. This was done and Lt. Col. Papatla submitted a report on the 20th. He compared the hints with the question paper and considered that the similarly between them justified the conclusion that there had been a leakage. 6. It so happened that an ordinary meeting of the University Syndicate had been called for the 21st to consider certain other matters. This question was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hancellor had already called another meeting of the syndicate for the 28th to consider other matters. Once again, this was not placed on the agenda but the Vice-Chancellor brought it up suo moto as before. Again, eleven of the twelve were present but this time the absentee was Dr. M. Mansinha who had approved of the previous resolution. The former absentee, Mr. Pradhan, was present at this meeting. For a second time the decision was unanimous and all eleven refused to review the former resolution. It is admitted that Dr. Mansinha who was not there did not know that this question would be considered again. 12. The learned High Court Judges held that the want of notice in the to cases invalidated the resolutions. They examined the facts for themselves and concluded that even if the evidence is sufficient to indicated a possibility of some leakage, there was no justification for the syndicate to pass such a drastic resolution in the absence of proof of the quantum and the amplitude of leakage. They held that the syndicate had acted unreasonably and without due care. They therefore issued mandamus directing the syndicate to take steps for the publication of the results. 13. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be governed by its own facts and no universal rule can be laid down; also it may well be that in the same body certain things, such as routine matters, can be disposed of more easily and with less formality than others. It all depends on the nature of the body and its rules. 17. In the present case, there were not one but two meetings. Proper notices of both meetings were issued to all the members including the two absentees. The only defect is that the matter we are concerned with was not included in the agenda of either meeting. We need not decide here whether this must always be done - there are English cases which indicate that that is not always necessary, see for example. The King v. Pulsford 108 E.R. 1073, La Compagnie De Mayville v. Whitley [1896] 1 Ch. 788, and Parker and Cooper Ltd. v. Reading [1926] 1 Ch. 975; also, in the present case one of the items in the agenda of both notices was other matters, if any. But it is not necessary to go into that because in the case these members did in fact attend one or other of the meetings and expressed their views, not individually, but as members of a meeting which was considering the matter; and there was unanimity on bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion was one of urgency and the Vice-Chancellor and the members of the syndicate were well within their rights in exercising their discretion in the way they did. It may be that the matter could have been handled in some other way, as, for example, in the manner the learned Judges indicate, but it is not the function of courts of law to substitute their wisdom and discretion for that of the persons to whose judgment the matter in question is entrusted by the law. The University authorities acted honestly as reasonable and responsible men confronted with an urgent situation are entitled to act. They had experts of their own on their body. They examined others who in their opinion might throw light on the incident. They themselves compared the two papers and, after a deliberation of some six hours, arrived at an unanimous decision and then they reviewed the matter afresh at a second meeting with the assistance of one of their number who was not present on the first occasion. It is inaccurate to describe that as haste and unjust to characterise their action as unreasonable and lacking due care. This is decidedly not the sort of case in which a mandamus ought to issue. We according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
