Back
2011 Supreme(All) 1202
2011 (86) ALR 521
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sunil Ambwani, J. and Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.
Dr. Vimal Kumar Lahari
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3577 OF 2011
Decided on : 22.4.2011
R.N. Singh and V.K. Singh.
Ajit Kumar Singh and Neeraj Tripathi, C.S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for administrative actions to be conducted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, particularly in the context of the Chancellor's administrative decision-making power under the UP State Universities Act, 1973.
Headnote:
Vigilance Enquiry - University Selection Dispute - UP State Universities Act, 1973 - Section 31 (8) (a), Section 66 - The judgment discusses the pendency of a vigilance enquiry into the conduct of the outgoing Vice Chancellor and its impact on the Executive Council's disagreement with the recommendations of the selection committee. It also highlights the overriding effect of Section 66 of the UP State Universities Act and the Chancellor's administrative decision-making power under Section 31 (8) (a). The court emphasizes the duty to act fairly in administrative actions and the requirement for decisions to be made consistently with the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside the order canceling their selection as a Lecturer in Sociology in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste due to the pendency of a vigilance enquiry into the conduct of the outgoing Vice Chancellor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the pendency of the vigilance enquiry was not a valid ground to cancel the petitioner's selection and directed the Chancellor to reconsider the disagreement conveyed by the Executive Council without taking into account the vigilance enquiry.
Issues: The court addressed the impact of the vigilance enquiry on the selection process, the validity of the Executive Council's disagreement, and the Chancellor's administrative decision-making power under the UP State Universities Act, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pendency of the vigilance enquiry did not justify canceling the petitioner's selection and emphasized the duty to act fairly in administrative actions. It also clarified the Chancellor's administrative decision-making power under the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Chancellor's order and directed a reconsideration of the disagreement without considering the vigilance enquiry, emphasizing the need for expeditious decision-making.
1. 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 the Chancellor of the University has accepted the recommendations of the Executive Council of the University to cancel the petitioner's selection as Lecturer in Sociology in reserved category of Scheduled Caste by the Selection Committee on the ground that a vigilance enquiry into the conduct of the outgoing Vice Chancellor is pending and that there is possibility of delay in concluding the enquiry.
3. We are called upon to answer the question, as to whether the pendency of the vigilance enquiry, initiated by the State Government into various functions of Shri K.S. Kushwaha, the then Vice Chancellor of the University close to his retirement, would be a ground on which the Executive Council can disagree with the recommendations of the statutory selection committee and refer the matter to the Chancellor of the University under Section 31 (8) (a) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973 (in short the Act).
4. An advertisement was issued by Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi being Advertisement No. 2 of 2006 for the posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer, followed by advertisement No. 6 of 2006. The candidates, who had already applied, were not required to apply, afresh. The petitioner claims to be fully qualified and eligible for being appointed as Lecturer in Sociology. He applied for the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The interviews were held on 18.11.2007, by a duly constituted selection committee.
5. The Chancellor by his order dated 26.9.2007 restrained the Vice Chancellor from convening any meeting of the selection committees, considering the fact, that he was to retire on 31.12.2007. Aggrieved a writ petition was filed by Dr. Sharad Bansal and another (Writ Petition No. 45924 of 2007) which was disposed of by this Court on 4.10.2007, holding that there could not be any oral direction to postpone the proceedings of the selection committee, which were initiated. Another writ petition filed by Dr. Prem Chandra Vishwakarma challenging the same order was also disposed of on the same terms directing the respondents authority to proceed with the selections.
6. The Chancellor again by his order dated 14.12.2007 restrained the Vice Chancellor to undertake the proceedings for appointments on teaching and non-teaching posts as he was going to retire on 31.12.2007; within a few days. The selection committees had met and had made their recommendations. In Writ Petition No. 63914 of 2007 (Dr. Vinay Shankar Singh and 13 others vs. State of UP and others) an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order of the Chancellor dated 14.12.2007. The Chancellor issued a third restraint order on 19.12.2007 directing that the Vice Chancellor not to place the recommendations made by the selection committee before the Executive Council for its consideration. The matter, however, was placed before the Executive Council on 24.12.2007, and considering the orders passed by the High Court, the Executive Council was of the opinion that it was fully competent to consider the matter for appointment. The Vice Chancellor retired on 31.12.2007. He was succeeded by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi as the Vice Chancellor, who did not convene the meeting of the Executive Council, and thus the appointment orders could not be issued.
7. In a writ petition filed by Dr. Mrs. Sneh Lata Prabhakar vs. State of UP & others (Writ Petition No. 897 of 2008) connected with Writ Petition filed by Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of UP and others (W
