Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
S.C. MISRA & S. WASIUDDIN, JJ.
Dr. Benoy Krishna Roy & Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Ranchi University & Others - Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 490 of 1967
Decided on: 16th July, 1969
UNIVERSITY - Appointment of Reader - Change in method of appointment from open advertisement to promotion - Change in qualification - Nomination of experts - Participation of respondent in Syndicate meeting - Recommendation of only one name by Commission - Temporary appointment and subsequent confirmation - Legality and validity.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, professors of History in Ranchi University, challenged the appointment of respondent as Reader in History, alleging malafide change in method of appointment, qualification, nomination of experts, participation of respondent in Syndicate meeting, recommendation of only one name by Commission, and irregular temporary appointment and confirmation.
Finding of the Court:
1. Change in method of appointment from open advertisement to promotion was not malafide and was in the interest of teachers and efficient working of the University. 2. Change in qualification was not malafide and was reasonable and essential. 3. Irregularity in nomination of experts did not materially affect the matter as the question was one of determining eligibility. 4. Respondent's participation in Syndicate meeting did not vitiate the resolution as he did not participate in the discussion about his own appointment. 5. Recommendation of only one name by Commission was permissible as the other candidates were not eligible. 6. Temporary appointment and subsequent confirmation were not irregular.
Issues: 1. Whether the change in method of appointment from open advertisement to promotion was malafide and ultra vires? 2. Whether the change in qualification was malafide and without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the nomination of experts was irregular and malafide? 4. Whether the participation of respondent in Syndicate meeting vitiated the resolution? 5. Whether the recommendation of only one name by Commission was improper? 6. Whether the temporary appointment and subsequent confirmation of respondent were irregular?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Vice-Chancellor had the discretion to decide whether to fill the post by promotion or direct recruitment, with the approval of the Chancellor. The change in decision was reasonable and in accordance with a resolution passed at a Conference of Vice-Chancellors. 2. The change in qualification was initiated by the Chancellor himself and was reasonable and essential, as a Doctorate Degree was necessary for directing research. 3. The irregularity in nomination of experts did not affect the matter as the question was one of determining eligibility. 4. Respondent's participation in Syndicate meeting did not vitiate the resolution as he did not participate in the discussion about his own appointment. 5. The recommendation of only one name by Commission was permissible as the other candidates were not eligible. 6. The temporary appointment and subsequent confirmation were not irregular.
Final Decision: Petition dismissed.
1. There are case who are the Ranchi two petitioners in this professors of History in University. Respondent no. 2, Dr. Shachee Nivas Singh was also a Professor of History in the Ranchi University, but he has been promoted and appointed as a Reader in History. The present two petitioners were aggrieved by this appointment and promotion and hence they filed this writ petition and obtained a rule Nisi. This petition is for quashing the ORDER :of the Syndicate of the Ranchi University (Annexure H) dated 20.8.1965 appointing respondent no. 2 as Reader of the Ranchi University and also for quashing the ORDER :of the Chancellor of the Ranchi University (Annexure-I) dated 16.6.1967 by which he rejected the representation of the petitioners.
2. The relevant facts which have given rise to this present application briefly stated are as follows :
On 15.11.1962 the Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University wrote a letter to the Chancellor and this letter is Annexure-Y to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The Vice-Chancellor in this letter emphasised the necessity of creating a few superior posts of Professors and Readers and he recommended that two posts of Readers, one in Psychology and the other in History should be created. He further also recommended in this letter that simultaneous with the creation of the posts appointments may also be made which will be purely temporary, for a period not more than six months and that steps should be taken to advertise them through the Public Service Commission. According to this proposal, Dr. Shachee Nivas Singh, respondent no. 2 was to be appointed as Reader in History. It also appears from his letter that respondent no. 2 had also been appointed a Reader in the Magadh University and there was thus an anxiety in the mind of the Vice-Chancellor that such posts should be created so that it may stop respondent no, 2 and others of the other departments from leaving posts in the Ranchi University and going to other universities, The Chancellor approved the proposals on 19.11.1962. The qualifications of the various posts of teachers were embodied in the Statutes of the Bihar University and the minimum qualification for the post of a Professor or Reader under the aforesaid Statutes was as follows :-
"(a) A high class Master's degree, or equivalent degree of a foreign university and at least ten years teaching experience of Honours or Post-graduate classes.
Or
(b) A high second class Master's degree, or equivalent degree of a foreign University, followed by a Research degree of Ph. D. standard or published research work of a high standard and at least five years teaching experience in Honours or Post-graduate classes."
According to the petitioners in a malafide manner and just with a view to appoint respondent no. 2 permanently to the post of a Reader, amendments in the Statutes regarding the qualifications were proposed and this modification was assented to by the Chancellor. Modification made in the qualification and which received the assent of the Chancellor was as follows :-
"A teacher who shall (i) have a first or at least second class Master's degree of an Indian University and have a research degree of a Doctorate standard or a good Honours or equivalent degree of a foreign University,
s
(ii) have teaching experience of about five years in the Post-graduate or Honours classes, and
(iii) have experience of conducting research.
The period 10 to 5 years respectively shall not be reduced by more than one year in any case, and the deduction will be made only in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing. With this modification the Statutes are approved."
It may also be mentioned here that admittedly as far as the length of service is concerned, petitioners 1 and 2 are senior to respondent no. 2 because petitioner no. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer in the Ranchi College in 1951 and petitioner no. 2 was appointed in 1953 and respondent no. 2 was appointed a Lecturer in
AI
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
