By the Court.—We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.

2. The petitioner has prayed setting aside the order dated 23/28th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in so far as he has accepted the disagreement of the Executive Council of the University to the selection of the petitioner as Lecturer (Sangeet-’Sitar’) in the Department of Fine Arts of the University.

2. In the meeting of the Executive Council dated 22.5.2009 after considering the recommendations made by the selection committee held on 9.9.2009 and 10.9.2009, it was found that in the Department of ‘Manch Kala’, the recommendations were made for one post of Lecturer in ‘Sangeet-Sitar’, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate; Dr. Snehlata Prabhakar-the petitioner in the writ petition was recommended for appointment. The Executive Council took a decision to accept the recommendation of the selection committee but in view of the pending vigilance enquiry a decision was taken to stay the process of issuing the appointment letter, and the recommendation was forwarded to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act. The Chancellor in his order dated 23.12.2010 noticed that Dr. Snehlata Prabhakar the petitioner has been recommended by the selection committee for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Sitar) reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate; the Executive Council has accepted the recommendation of the selection committee in its meeting dated 22.5.2009 but has deferred the process for issuing appointment letter on the ground of pendency of a vigilance enquiry. The Chancellor after noticing the recommendation of the Executive Council to accept the proposal of the Selection Committee, and to stay the process of issuing appointment letter, on the ground of pendency of a vigilance enquiry, has rejected the recommendation of the selection committee.

3. In the present case there was no complaint against the petitioner’s selection, either with regard to the availability of post; qualification and eligibility of the petitioner or the constitution and quorum of the selection committee nor there was no complaint with regard to the shortage of the number of experts. The Executive Council had accepted the recommendations of the selection committee and had only deferred the process of issuance of the appointment letter on account of pendency of the vigilance enquiry into some allegations against the then Vice-Chancellor, who completed his term on 31.12.2007. It is alleged that the rejection of recommendation of the selection committee was not based on any other material and was thus wholly unjustified and arbitrary. The Chancellor did not apply his mind to the fact that the Executive Council had in fact accepted the recommendation, and that there was no ground of disagreement to refer the matter to the Chancellor, except the possible delay of more than four months from the date when the selection committee had made the recommendation and the consideration of the Executive Council on 22.5.2009.

4. In the counter-affidavit of Shri Om Prakash, Assistant Registrar (Legal Cell) of the University, a new fact has been given for disapproving the recommendation of the selection committee. It is stated in paragraph-3 (n) that since no expert was nominated for the post of Lecturer in Sitar in Manch Kala Department, as such, a letter was issued by the Vice Chancellor to the Principal Secretary, to the Chancellor on 26.4.2007, for nominating the names of experts in the subjects alongwith list of 09 persons for the nomination. In paragraph-3 (o) and 3 (p), it is stated that in pursuance thereto a letter was written by the office of Chancellor on 4.6.2007 nominating the name of five persons a