Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
POORAN CHAND – APPELLANT
VERSUS
CHANCELLOR & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.268-269 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.17665-17666 of 2019)
Decided on : 29-01-2021
Service Law – Appointment – Post of Professors, Associate Professors, Asstt. Professors and Lecturers in U.P. King George’s University of Dental Sciences, Lucknow – In pursuance of advertisement both appellant and respondent No.4 had applied respectively for post of Assistant Professor and Lecturer and Selection Committee recommended their appointment and Executive Council in the meeting dated 08.08.2005 approved recommendations of Selection Committee appointing appellant as Assistant Professor and respondent No.4 as Lecturer – Members of teaching faculty of University be it Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted according to academic calendar – It is in interest of University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to disputes in University – Appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor which is approved on 08.08.2005 was not challenged or questioned by respondent No.4 in accordance with provisions of Act, 2002 – Appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor having not been challenged before Chancellor, he could not have been permitted to challenge appointment of appellant – Appointment could not be allowed to be challenged after four years in writ petition – It was after respondent No.4 was promoted as Assistant Professor, he submitted representations and claimed before Chancellor seniority over appellant – There is no question of reversion of appellant on post of Lecturer when he was appointed as Assistant Professor on 08.08.2005 – Act which Governs appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in University itself provides a mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to Chancellor that too within a period of three months – Any challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained – When appointment of appellant was not challenged in reasonable time as per provisions of Act, 2002, it is not in ends of justice to permit respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in High Court in writ petition for first time, after more than four years of appointment – Judgment of High Court set aside and writ petition filed by respondent No.4 dismissed. [King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002 – Section 53](Paras 9,11, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals have been filed challenging Division Bench judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 12.04.2018 by which writ petition filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed and the order of the Chancellor dated 08.07.2009 rejecting the representation made by respondent No.4 was set aside.
Findings of Court:
Act which Governs appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in University itself provides a mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to Chancellor that too within a period of three months. Any challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed challenging the Division Bench judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 12.04.2018 by which writ petition filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed and the order of the Chancellor dated 08.07.2009 rejecting the representation made by respondent No.4 was set aside.
3. Brief facts of the case for deciding these appeals are:
3.2 The appellant made an application for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor whereas respondent No.4 made an application for appointment on the post of Lecturer. Both the appellant and respondent No.4 were considered by the same Selection Committee and recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by Executive Council in its meeting dated 08.08.2005 approving the appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor and that of respondent No.4 as Lecturer. The appellant, who was working as Assistant Professor in BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur after obtaining permission from State of U.P. joined as Assistant Professor on 08.12.2005.
3.3 The respondent No.4 submitted his joining as Lecturer on 08.08.2005. The respondent No.4 was promoted on the post of Assistant Professor on 08.08.2007 after completing three years experience. The representations were submitted by respondent No.4 to the University claiming seniority over the appellant. A representation was addressed by respondent No.4 to the Chancellor dated 13.02.2009 regarding the appointment and claim of seniority as Assistant Professor in the University. The respondent No.4 claimed that his experience at the time of appointment as Senior Research Fellow in W.H.O. was not considered. His representation to the Chancellor principally claimed seniority over appellant based on his experience claiming that he has also completed requisite experience at the time of his appointment on the post of Assistant Professor.
3.4 The Chancellor vide his order dated 08.07.2009 rejected the representation made by respondent No.4. The Chancellor in his order referred to the report sent by the University that experience of the appellant as Senior Research fellow in W.H.O. cannot be counted as experience. Aggrieved by the order of the Chancellor dated 08.07.2009 rejecting his claim, the respondent No.4 filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1350(SB) of 2009 praying for following reliefs:-
“i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.07.2009 passed by Opp. Party No.1 and impugned appointment order dated 08.08.2005 of OPP. Party no.4 as Asstt. Professor contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to the writ petition.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus/prohibition commanding the OPP. Party No. 1 to 3 to revert, back the OPP. Party NO.4 from the post of Asstt. Professor and post him in the post Lecturer from the date of joining forthwith.
iii. issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Opp. Party No.1 to 3 to declare the petitioner senior to the Opp. Party No.4 with all consequential service benefits.
iv. issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Opp. Parties to count the period of Senior Research Fellow as teaching experience in promoting the petitioner, as Asstt. Professor.
v. any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be passed.
vi. Allow the Writ Petition with cost.”
3.5 In the writ petition both the appellant as well as University has filed their counter affidavit and contested the claim of the respondent No.4. Division Bench of the High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 12.04.2018 al
It is in interest of University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to disputes in Uni....
Appointment – Parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from parameters to be applied to a case where no spec....
The Chancellor's authority allows for resolving seniority disputes in academia, despite procedural lapses, with seniority determined primarily by age.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide substantiated reasoning in their decisions to ensure fairness in civil rights matters.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned decisions when determining civil rights; failure to do so renders the decision unsustainable.
The main legal point established is the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing, in termination proceedings, and the applicability....
Invalid Selection Committee lacking personal DG ICAR presence renders Vice-Chancellor appointment unlawful, but unchallenged tenure completion permits valid extension under S.24(3) proviso as continu....
Courts must exercise judicial restraint in academic appointments, deferring to the expertise of validly constituted selection committees. Administrative-academic roles involving research guidance and....
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
