Back
2012 Supreme(All) 545
[2012(3) ADJ 748 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SHEO KUMAR SINGH AND PANKAJ NAQVI, JJ.
Dr. RAVI SHANKAR PANDEY ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22953 of 2007, decided on 24th February, 2012)
G.K. Singh and V.K. Singh for the Petitioner; C.S.C., Anil Tewari, Neeraj Tripathi, S.K. Tyagi, Sanjay Singh, V.B. Mishra and V.D. Vyas for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. State Universities Act, 1973—Sections 31 (8) (a), 7-A, 6 and 4(a)—Power—Chancellor—Ambit of, in recommending name of candidate for appointment of teacher in University—Examined and projected by High Court, by help of statutory scheme of appointment and views of Supreme Court—High Court clarified that Chancellor has limited powers—He is not appellate authority when dispute regarding appointment between Selection Committee and Executive Council is referred to him—His function while considering such reference is to examine views of Executive Council and Selection Committee and give weight to views of experts—He cannot enter into controversy of merits and suitability of candidates—If he finds that selection is made in violation of statutory and constitutional norms or indicating bias, which will cause injustice, he may interfere—In such a case, Chancellor may either constitute fresh Selection Committee or obtain opinion of some more experts before arriving at any decision—In the instant case, petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 and respondent No. 6 was as serial No. 2—In interview for appointment of lecturer in Department of Sanskrit Vidya, in Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi, both appear before Selection Committee—Name of petitioner was unanimously recommended by Selection Committee, at Serial No. 1—Name of respondent No. 6 was placed on serial No. 2 by Selection Committee, with a note of dissent by Head of the Department that respondent No. 6, that she does not possess either degree of Acharya in Vyakaran or post graduate degree in subject with specialization in Vyakaran—Matter was placed before Executive Council, which recommended appointment of respondent No. 6 inspite of fact that her name was as Serial No. 6—Thereafter, Vice-Chancellor, who happens to be Chairman of Selection Committee adopted a naval method and drawn merit list, in which he recommended name of respondent No. 6 for appointment—Such action of Vice-Chancellor was based on grounds, which were found by High Court to be based on assessment of merits—Such approach was beyond his powers—Recommendation, as such, quashed—High Court directed Vice-Chancellor to pass fresh order. [Paras 9 to 16, 19 to 31, 33 and 35 to 37]
Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Can a Chancellor in exercise of powers conferred under Section 31 (8) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assess the relative merit and suitability of a candidate and recommend an appointment, even though such a person has not been recommended by the selection committee?
The aforesaid issue has cropped up in relation to the facts and circumstances, which are enumerated hereunder :
Sampoornanand Sanskrit University (for short the University) issued an advertisement No. 1-2004 dated 6.8.2004 inviting applications for 27 posts of lecturers including a post of lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit Vidya. It was provided therein that in order to be eligible to apply for the aforesaid post a candidate should possess a degree of Acharya or Post-Graduate degree in the subject with specialization in Vyakaran. About 50 candidates applied against the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner has to his credit a degree of Acharya in Vyakaran and has also cleared his National Eligibility Test (NET) held by University Grant Commission (UGC) and is also P.hD holder in Vyakaran. The petitioner also claims to have taught Vyakaran in the Department of University as a part time lecturer for one academic session. Interview took place on 12.1.2005 in which the petitioner alongwith others also appeared. The petitioner claims that even though Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda was not eligible, as she did not possess requisite qualification, as required in the advertisement, as she neither had a degree of Acharya nor a Post-Graduate degree in Sanskrit with specialization in Vyakaran, yet she appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee unanimously recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post in question at serial No. 1 and also recommended Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda - respondent No. 6 at serial No. 2. The recommendation of the petitioner was unanimous, but in the case of Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda there was a note of dissent by the Head of Department, as he was of the view that her name should not be recommended, as she did not possess either the degree of Acharya in Vyakaran or a Post Graduate degree in the subject with specialization in Vyakaran and also that she was not able to answer question on Vyakaran. Accordingly, recommendations made by the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 23.1.2005 and the Executive Council passed a resolution appointing respondent No. 6 on the post of lecturer, even though she was at serial No. 2 and accordingly, an appointment order was issued in favour of respondent No. 6 on 23.1.2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the appointment of Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda - respondent No. 6 as lecturer filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8003 of 2005 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others). In the said petition a stand was taken by the University that the Vice Chancellor/Chairman of the Selection Committee had given his marks in a sealed cover, which were disclosed for the first time before the Executive Council, and on that basis respondent No. 6 was more suitable than the petitioner. Following findings were recorded in the judgment dated 16.12.2005, which are enumerated hereunder:
(I) A Selection Committee takes a collective decision as a Body which cannot be affected subsequently by any act or an individual member of the Selection Committee. The decision of the Selection Committee placing the petitioner at serial number 1 was its final recommendation notwithstanding the fact that the Vice Chancellor initially without there being any provision reserved his right to disclose the marks awarded by him before the Executive Council.
(II) The Executive Council was supposed to make appointment as per position or ranking obtained in the recommendation and it had no power to override the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and to appoint a candi
