KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF U. P. - 2011 Supreme(All) 1203

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(All) 1203

[2011(6) ADJ 595 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL AMBWANI AND MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, JJ.
Dr. KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ….Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ….Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3561 of 2011, decided on 22nd April, 2011)

Advocates:
Counsel :
R.N. Singh, G.K. Singh and V.K. Singh for the Petitioners; Neeraj Tripathi and Ajit Kumar Singh, C.S.C. for the Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. State Universities Act, 1973—Sections 31 (5) (a) and 66—Selection—Lecturer—Requirement of presence of expert during selection—Relevancy—Legal position—Considered and clarified—Act provides for presence of two experts of subject concerned in case of lecturers and three experts of subject concerned in case of Readers and Professors, at time of selection—But if Vice-Chancellor obtained consent of these experts and noted their acceptance in copy of letter sent to them—Mere fact that one expert was absent in each category of selection—Would not vitiate selection—Law requires quantum of 50% to be fulfilled—In the instant case one expert during selection was absent in each category of selection—High Court found that selection is not vitiated—Order of Chancellor not giving his agreement for selection on ground of absence of expert—Quashed—It was also found by High Court that Chancellor refused to accept selection also on ground that some complaints are received against selection—But there was no material on record to show that complaint related to eligibility, vacancy or constitution of selection committee—As such, on that ground too, order of Chancellor found to be unsustainable—Relevant legal features—Elaborated. [Paras 6 to 11 and 14 to 20]

JUDGMENT

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 for setting aside the order dated 23/28th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi (the University), in so far as he has accepted the disagreement of the Executive Council of the University in its resolution dated 23.6.2010 to the selections of the petitioners as Lecturers (petitioner Nos. 1 to 4), Reader (petitioner No. 5) and Professor (petitioner No. 6), by direct recruitment by the selection committee in pursuance to advertisement No. 2 of 2006 followed by advertisement No. 6 of 2006 published by the University. The Chancellor has accepted the disagreement on the ground that one of the subject expert was not present in the selections in violation of Section 31 (5) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short the Act), and if any subject expert has expressed his inability to attend the meeting of the selection committee, the Vice-Chancellor should have invited the next subject expert in the list of nominations of such experts provided by the Chancellor.

3. Section 31 (5) (a) of the Act is quoted as below :

“31. Appointment of Teachers......

(5) (a) A panel of six or more experts in each subject of study shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after consulting the corresponding Faculty in Indian Universities or such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside Uttar Pradesh as the Chancellor may consider necessary, Every expert to be nominated by the Chancellor under sub-section (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on such panel.

(b) The Board of each Faculty shall maintain a standing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of study, and every expert to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor under sub-section (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on the panel.

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a postgraduate degree or for Part I or Part II thereof shall be deemed to be a Separate subject of study.

Explanation II.—Where the post of teacher to be selected is common to more than one subject of study, the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study.

(d) The Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellor, as the case may be, may intimate in a specified order, a larger number of names of experts than required under sub-section (4) for serving as his nominees on the Selection Committee. In such case, on any person whose name appears higher in the specified order not being available for a meeting of the Selection Committee, a person whose name appears nearest lower in the specified order shall be requested to serve on the Committee.”

4. A tabular chart of the subjects; posts and categories in which the petitioners had applied; the dates when the selection committee met; the experts panel provided by the Chancellor through his letter dated 16.11.2006; the name of the experts present in the selection committee and those who could not appear and attend inspite of their consent taken by the Vice-Chancellor, is given as below :

“Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh Petitioner No. 1

Subject: Social Work Post: Lecturer

Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post

Date of Selection Committee: 18.11.2007

Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject

through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection

dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee

1. Pro. K.K. Mukhopadhyay 1. Prof. N. Vanketswami Reddi

University of Delhi, D. Bangalore University, K.

2. Prof. P.V. Rajalakshmi 2. Telephonic consent of one expert

S.P.