The issue in controversy

Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—Both the writ petitions have been filed in public interest, seeking a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the appointments of the third, fourth and fifth respondents as members of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Commission) are contrary to the statutory provisions contained in Section 4 (2-a) of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (Act). All the three respondents have been appointed in pursuance of the provisions of Clause (g) of sub-section (2-a) under which, the State Government is empowered to appoint a person, as a member of the Commission, who in its opinion, is “an eminent person having made valuable contribution in the field of education”. The first petition has been filed by the Gorakhpur University Affiliated College Teachers Association and its President. The second writ petition has been filed by Dr K K Sahi, who is an Associate Professor in Law at a Post Graduate Degree College in Deoria.

2. Section 4 of the Act provides as follows:

“4. Composition of the Commission.—(1) The Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two and not more than six other members to be appointed by the State Government.

(2) No person shall be qualified for appointment as Chairman unless he-

(a) is or has been a member of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service who has held the post of District Judge or any other post equivalent thereto; or

(b) is or has been a member of the Indian Administrative Service who has held the post of a Secretary to the State Government or any other post under the State Government equivalent thereto; or

(c) is or has been a Vice-Chancellor of any University; or

(d) is or has been a Professor in any University; or

(e) is in the opinion of the State Government an eminent person having made valuable contribution in the field of education.

(2-a) No person shall be qualified for appointment as member unless he—

(a) is or has been a member of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service who has held the post of District Judge or any other post equivalent thereto; or

(b) is or has been a member of the Indian Administrative Service who has held the post of a Secretary to the State Government or any other post under the State Government equivalent thereto; or

(c) is or has been a Vice-Chancellor of any University; or

(d) is or has been a Professor in any University; or

(e) is or has been a principal of a Post Graduate College for a period of not less than five years; or

(f) is or has been a Principal of Degree College for a period of not less than ten years; or

(g) is in the opinion of the State Government an eminent person having made valuable contribution in the field of education.

(3) Every appointment under this section shall take effect from the date on which it is notified by the State Government.”

3. When the petition (PIL No. 35375 of 2015) was initially taken up for admission on 19 June 2015, the attention of the Court was drawn to the averments contained in paragraph 12 of the first petition to the effect that the third respondent had applied in pursuance of an advertisement which was issued by the Commission for the post of Principal of a Post Graduate Degree College, but he was not selected by the same Commission in which he was then discharging duties as an Officiating Chairperson. While taking note of this averment, the Division Bench noted the submission that the expression “an eminent person having made valuable contribution in the field of education” must have some meaning and whether a person, who has been unsuccessful before the same Commission, could become its Chairperson, was a matter which required to be addressed. The Division Bench, by its order dated 19 June 2015, directed that the State Government through the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, should visit the issue and if it is found that the third respondent had failed in the selection conducted b