Judgment

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- Special leave granted.

2. The Chancellor of the Lucknow University while exercising power under Section 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 ("the Act) has directed that Km. Neelima Misra, the appellant herein should be appointed as Reader in Psychology in the University. That order has been quashed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petn. No. 2777 of 1978* at the instance of Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal, respondent (1). This appeal is from that judgment of the High Court.

* Reported in 1989 Lab IC 2248 (All)

3. The background of the case in the barest outline may be stated as under :

The Lucknow University invited applications for appointment of Reader in Psychology from candidates who possessed the prescribed qualifications. In response to the advertisement, several candidates filed their applications. The appellant and respondents 1 to 5 were some of them offered themselves as candidates committee which was constituted for selection of candidates called them for interview along with some others. After considering their qualifications, experience and relative performance in the interview, the Selection Committee graded them as follows :

"All the candidates who appeared for the interview possess a Ph. D. degree. Km. Neelima Misra does not possess a Ph. D. degree. Her thesis is nearing completion. Her thesis work along with her publication were scrutinised and it was found that she satisfies the condition of published work of a high standard in the subject, provided as an alternative to Ph.D. degree. All the candidates have a consistently good academic record and more than 54 marks in the M. A. Examinations, except Dr. C. B. Dwivedi, who has a, 3rd Division in the High School, Dr. Ratan Singh who has 3rd division in High School and B.A.

2. All the candidates possess the requisite teaching experience of post graduate classes.

3. And the basis of the research work, publications, experience and performance at the interview, the Committee graded the candidates as follows :

1. Mr. Neelima Misra

2. Dr. (Km.) Mukta Rani Rastogi

3. Dr. (Smt) Harinder Kaur Paintal

4. Dr. S. N. Rai

The rest of the candidates were found unsuitable. The view of the above Committee recommended that Km. Neelima Misra be appointed to the post of Reader in Psychology. "

4. Km. Neelima Misra was found to have to her credit a published work of high standard in the subject of Psychology though she had no Ph.D. degree. Besides she as considered to be more suitable on the basis of research work, publication experience and performance at the interview. The Selection  Committee, therefore, recommended her for appointment to the post of Reader in Psychology.

5.That recommendation came before the Executive Council. The Executive Council by a split majority disagreed with the recommendation and preferred the appointment of respondent (5) Dr. (Km) M. R. Rastogi. It has expressed the view that the appellant did not possess the essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Reader and therefore, not suitable for appointment. The opinion expressed by the Executive Council is as under :

"A perusal of the bio data of Km. Neelima Misra shows that she does not possess Ph.D. degree nor has she submitted her thesis so far. Yet it is strange to say that her published work is of a high standard. Thus she does not fulfil requirement of essential qualifications and riot suitable for the post.

The bio data of Dr. (Km.) M. R. Rastogi shows that she possesses 11 years teaching experience of post-graduate classes. She has a consistently good academic record and should be appointed Reader in Psychology as she has been graded No. 2 by the Selection Committee. Dr. (Smt) Harinder Kaur Paintal is a Lecturer since November 1972 and has also a consistently good academic record and is suitable for the post.

As a consequence there is no question of relaxation of essential qualification as candidate of requisite merit are available."

6