Back
1997(6) Supreme 92
Supreme Court of India
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Sri Raj Pal Verma & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Chancellor of Meerut University (renamed as Ch. Charan Singh University), Raj Bhawan, Lucknow & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3693 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18283 of 1995)
Decided on 1-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants, D.D. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, N.N. Bhat, for petitioner-in-person.
For the Respondents, R.B. Misra, R.D. Upadhyaya, Advocates, (Amlan Ghosh) Advocate (N.P.)
Held that when there is a difference of opinion on the selection of a teacher of the University or affiliated college for appointment as a Professor or Lecturer, as the case may be, between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council which is the appointing authority, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall consider the reasons given by the Executive Council for its disagreement with the Selection Committee and then he is entitled to take a decision in an appropriate manner. He should articulate his major premise by a reasoned order. In case the Chancellor feels that some material circumstances have not been considered by the executive committee or the same escaped their attention, instead of himself taking a decision, he may remit the matter to the Executive Council to reconsider the matter in terms of his guidance, and may also express his opinion for such a course of Action. He may also himself take a decision in which event it shall be final. In the later case, the Executive Council, on remittance and fresh consideration may still disapprove of the selection. In case the Executive Council expresses opinion thereafter, the Chancellor is entitled to take his own decision. The decision then shall be final and, of course, subject to judicial review and the intermediary action of remittance taken by the Chancellor is not final. Under these circumstances, we hold, on principle, that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Chancellor in remitting the matter to the Executive Council for reconsideration. It is true that the Chancellor has reconstituted the committee by nomination, instead of following the due procedure prescribed under the Act and loaded in favour of Mr. Sharma which may be open to grave doubt on the propriety of the course of action taken by the Chancellor. Though, prima facie, we are in agreement with Shri D.D. Thakur, in view of the long lapse of time, it is not necessary to record any finding in this regard. (Para 6)
(ii) U.P. University Act, 1973-Section 31-Appointment of a teacher of University-Vice Chancellor extended last date of application so as to enable third respondent to become eligible to submit application for selection-He prevented outside experts to participate in selection-Selection of respondent No. 3-His appointment made in March 1979-He was not qualified for appointment-Selection challenged-Now he is on the verge of retirement next year-Court declined to disturb the appointment with observation that there is deterioration of standards of rectitudes in management of higher educational institution-Executive would look into and meander the malady and restore lost glory of educational institutions.
Held : The third respondent came to be appointed as late as in March 1979 and 18 years have passed and we are informed that he is on the verge of retirement next year. Though he was not qualified for appointment at the first instance as he did not possess the Ph.D. degree in Ancient History, the subject to be taught, nonetheless, since the time has run out, we decline to disturb the appointment of the third respondent the observation that there is deterioration of standards of rectitudes in management of higher educational institution with the fond hope that the Executive would look into and meander the malady and restore the lost glory of the educational institutions. University is the centre of learning and the students look to the teacher as real Guru Devo Bhava with all respect, reverence in the heart, as the true guide, mentor, frient and philosopher. (Para 9)
(iii) Education-Educational Institutional management of higher educational institution-Observations made regarding deterioration of standards of rectitudes. (Paras 8, 9)
ORDER
Leave granted.
Intervention application is dismissed.
2. Here is a classic case of delay defeats justice . This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on November 28, 1994 in Writ Petitioner No. 38070/94.
3. It is not necessary to give in detail all the facts. Suffice it to state that pursuant to an advertisement on March 14, 1978 for selection to the post of Professor, Ancient History, Mr. K.K. Sharma, the 3rd respondent had applied for selection. While the selection was to be made by a Committee consisting of Vice-Chancellor, the Dean and three experts on the subject, of whom one was from outside the University and two from outside the State were comprised therein. On the day when the Committee met for selection of the teacher, two of the experts from outside the State did not attend the meeting. They appear to have acted upon the telegram sent by the Vice-Chancellor asking them to abstain from the selection panel. The Vice-Chancellor, the Dean and the local expert Mr. K.K. Nizam from Aligarh University then selected Mr. K.K. Sharma. The matter was referred to the Executive Council. The Executive Council, the appointing authority, did not approve of the selection. Mr. K.K. Sharma was qualified only in modern and medieval Indian history while the candidate was required to possess degree in Ancient History. Accordingly, the matter was referred under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. University Act, (10 of 1973) (for short, the Act ) to the Chancellor. The Chancellor, finding that all the seats of the Executive Council were not filled up, filled up four vacant seats by nomination, instead of following the due procedure and then referred the matter to the Executive Council. The Executive Council approved the selections made by the Selection Committee and pursuant there to, the third respondent came to be appointed in March 1979 as the Professor in Ancient History. The appointment came to be challenged before the High Court. Several rounds of litigations have since taken place. Ultimately, the first appellant who in one of the Professors, challenged the said appointment, as stated earlier, on diverse legal grounds. The High Court has dismissed the matter in limine. Since the appellant is appearing in person, we have requested Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel, to assist the Court. He has graciously accepted and ably assisted us. We express our deep thanks for the valuable assistance given by him.
4. The only question is: whether the action of the Chancellor in filling up the vacancies by nomination and instead of following the due procedure remitting the matter to the Executive Council for reconsideration of the matter is valid in law? In other words, could he alone decide it? Section 31(8)(a) reads as under :
"In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. The Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement and his decision shall be final.
5. In Chapter 5, appointment dealing with "appointment and condition of service of teachers and officers", under sub-section (1) of Section 31 it is provided thus :
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the teachers of the university and the teachers of an affiliated or associate college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government shall be appointed by the Executive Council or the Management of the affiliated or associated college, as the case may be, on the recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner hereinafter provided.
6. The details as to the constitution of the Selection Committee and manner of selection are not material for the purpose of this case. Section 31(8)(a) postulates that in the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
