Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(SC) 554

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Veerendra Kr. Gautam and others – Appellants
Versus
Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3361 of 2015 with Civil Appeal No. 3363,3364,3365,3366,3367,3368,3369,3370,3371,3372,3373,3374,3375,2015,3376,3377,3378 & 3379 of 2015
Decided On : 15-7-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- A. Sharan, Sr.Adv., Amit Anand Tiwari, Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Raj Singh Rana, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Makrand Pratap Singh, Ms. Rinku Mishra, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Manoj K. Mishra, Sandeep Kr. Dwivedi, Umesh Dubey, Ms. Anu Gupta, Jaideep Gupta, Sr.Adv., S.D. Singh, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Rahul Kumar, Jitender Singh, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Pati Raj Yadav, Sumit Kumar, Garvesh Kabra, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Manendra Dubey, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Sanjay Kumar Visen, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Gaurav Agrawal, M.R. Shamshad, Andleeb Naqui, Gaurav Shrivastva, Shibashish Misra, Gaurav Agrawal, C.D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Sandeepan Pathak, Anupam Lal Das, Prashant Kumar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-joining or resignation of some of candidates or likelihood of retirement of one other candidate will be of no consequence when whole process of selection was affected by serious illegalities.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law—De facto Doctrine—Acts of officers de facto performed by them within scope of their assumed authority in interest of public or third persons and not for their own benefits are generally held valid and binding as if they were acts of officers de jure—Even while applying de facto doctrine whether such acts performed were aimed at prevention of public and private mischief and for protection of public and private interest—Doctrine is intended to prevent invalidation of acts such as appointments on sole ground that they were performed without de jure authority. (Para 26)
       (B) Service Law—Selection—Post of Principals in Degree Colleges in State of Uttar Pradesh—Section 4(2)(e) or 4(2-a)(g) of U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980—Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations 1983—Regulation 6(1)—Division Bench after finding serious flaw in whole of selection process found that there was serious breach of regulations governing selection process and consequently set aside whole selection—Division Bench was well justified in holding that changing of norms while applying Regulation 6(1) for initial screening thrown considerable doubt about genuineness in selection process adopted by Commission—Non-joining or resignation of some of candidates or likelihood of retirement of one other candidate will be of no consequence when whole process of selection was affected by serious illegalities—Directions of Division Bench affirmed. (Paras 38, 54, 56 and 57)
       Facts of Case:
       Instant appeals are directed against common judgment of Division Bench of High of Allahabad dated 23.04.2012 in Writ Application No.34198 of 2008 etc. batch by which Division Bench dealt with challenge made to selection dated 15.05.2007, to post of Principals in Degree Colleges in State of Uttar Pradesh and selection dated 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 to post of Principals in different Post Graduate Colleges also in State of Uttar Pradesh. While dealing with challenges made, Division Bench ultimately set aside select list dated 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 as well as select list dated 15.05.2007 in respect of Principals to P.G Colleges and degree colleges respectively.
       Findings of Court:
       It must be noted that after finding serious flaw in matter of selection made by Commission, where Division Bench noted serious allegations as against those who were inducted as members of Commission who ceased to hold office by the time writ petitions came to be heard and thereby Division Bench was obliged to apply de facto doctrine and consider whole selection with little more care and caution in which process Division Bench was able to find out that relevant regulation viz., regulation 6 was seriously breached, in as much, as there were serious flaws in preliminary screening as well as in permitting ineligible candidates to participate apart from lack of necessary guidelines as prescribed under Regulation 6(2) for holding the interview in order to assess merits of the candidates and therefore as a step further Division Bench took note of certain instances where it pointed out how various factors noted by it did show serious lacuna in overall selection made by the Commission. Therefore, individual cases cannot be isolated to state that setting aside of selection should be restricted to only those individual cases and entirety of selection cannot be affected. We are not able to countenance such a submission put forth on behalf of the appellants and same stands rejected.
       Result—Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. - These appeals are directed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High of Allahabad dated 23.04.2012 in Writ Application No.34198 of 2008 etc. batch, by which, the Division Bench dealt with the challenge made to the selection dated 15.05.2007, to the post of Principals in the Degree Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the selection dated 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 to the post of Principals in different Post Graduate Colleges also in the State of Uttar Pradesh. While dealing with the said challenges made, the Division Bench ultimately set aside the select list dated 30.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 as well as the select list dated 15.05.2007 in respect of the Principals to P.G Colleges and degree colleges respectively by allowing W.P.No.34198 of 2008 along with connected writ petitions of Group-I and writ petition No.44358 of 2007. By the very same impugned judgment the Division Bench also dealt with another writ petition in W.P.No.70062 of 2006, by which, some of the selected candidates applied for Mandamus to give effect to the recommendations dated 15.05.2007 and simultaneously prayed for quashing the order of the State Government dated 12.06.2007, by which the State Government appointed the Divisional Commissioner, Allahabad to hold the preliminary enquiry regarding allegations against the selection dated 15.05.2007. In the very same writ petition, prayer was also made for quashing the order dated 16.06.2007 of the Divisional Commissioner by which certain information was called for from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission, Director of Education, who also issued a direction not to give any posting in pursuance of the select list dated 15.05.2007.

2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are that there were many number of post graduate and degree colleges situated in the State of U.P. affiliated to the University Governed by U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The selection and appointment in the post graduate and degree colleges were earlier made by the respective colleges in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the `1973 Act'). As there were numerous complaints regarding the selection of candidates for both the post of Teachers as well as the Principals in the post graduate colleges as well as the degree colleges, the State Government enacted U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the 1980 Act) to establish a Service Commission for the selection of Teachers which includes the post of Principals for appointment to the colleges affiliated to or recognized by the University under the 1973 Act. The Commission consisted of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than six members to be appointed by the State Government. The management of the colleges were expected to intimate the existing as well as future vacancies in the course of the ensuing academic year to the Director of Education and the Director in turn was required to notify the vacancies to the Commission. The Commission thereafter undertakes the process of selection in accordance with the Act, Rules and Regulations. At this juncture, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions of the 1980 Act as well as the relevant provisions in the Regulations and the Rules formulated under the provision of the 1980 Act.

3. Under Section 4(1) of 1980 Act it is stipulated that the Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than six other members to be appointed by the State Government. Sub Section (2) of Section 4 prescribes the qualification for appointment as a Chairman. What is relevant for our purpose is Section (4)(2)(e) as per which, a person will be held to be qualified to be appointed as Chairman, if he is in the opinion of the State Government an eminent person having

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 554

IMPORTANT POINTNon-joining or resignation of some of candidates or likelihood of retirement of one other candidate will be of no consequence when whole process of selection was affected by serious illegalities.

Cases Referred (16)

IMPORTANT POINT
Non-joining or resignation of some of candidates or likelihood of retirement of one other candidate will be of no consequence when whole process of selection was affected by serious illegalities.