Back
1997 Supreme(All) 1536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, O.P. Garg, JJ.
Dr. Vipin Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
University of Allahabad and Others – Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 31297 of 1995
Decided On : 03-04-1997
For the Appellant : Shailendra, V.S. Shukla, D.K. Singh, Rahul Sripat, K.N. Tripathi, L.P. Naithani and S. C. Budhwar
For the Respondent: Ashok Bhushan, R.N. Singh, A.P. Shahi and P.S. Baghel
The provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (Act No. 4 of 1994) are not applicable to the selection of Professors in State Universities, but they are applicable to the selection of Readers and Lecturers, subject to the roster and rotation as directed by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICES (RESERVATION OF SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES) ACT, 1994 - APPLICABILITY TO STATE UNIVERSITIES - PROFESSORS, READERS, AND LECTURERS - DISTINCTION - ACT NOT APPLICABLE TO PROFESSORS BUT APPLICABLE TO READERS AND LECTURERS SUBJECT TO ROSTER AND ROTATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Allahabad University published an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Professors, Readers, and Lecturers. The Petitioners challenged the advertisement, arguing that the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (Act No. 4 of 1994) should not be applied to the selection process for these posts in the University.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Act No. 4 of 1994 are not applicable to the selection of Professors in State Universities, but they are applicable to the selection of Readers and Lecturers, subject to the roster and rotation as directed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Dr. D. N. Shukla.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Act No. 4 of 1994 are applicable to the selection of Professors, Readers, and Lecturers in State Universities. 2. Whether there is a distinction between Professors, Readers, and Lecturers in terms of the applicability of Act No. 4 of 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in State of U.P. v. Dr. D. N. Shukla, Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra, and Dr. Rama Niwas Pandey to determine the applicability of Act No. 4 of 1994 to the selection of Professors, Readers, and Lecturers in State Universities. 2. The Court held that the Supreme Court's decisions make a distinction between Professors on the one hand and Readers and Lecturers on the other, in terms of the applicability of Act No. 4 of 1994. 3. The Court found that the Supreme Court's decisions uphold the view that Act No. 4 of 1994 is not applicable to the selection of Professors in State Universities, but it is applicable to the selection of Readers and Lecturers, subject to the roster and rotation as directed by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned advertisements No. 1/95 and 6/95 in so far as they relate to the posts of Professors. The Court directed that these two advertisements be pursued in so far as they relate to the vacant Posts of Lecturers and Readers as on today subject to applying roster and rotation under the Government Order dated 19.4.1995 as modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Dr. D. N. Shukla (supra).
Palok Basu, J.
An advertisement was got published by Allahabad University (In some newspapers, it is shown as 30th January and February, 1995) inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, is under challenge in the aforementioned writ petitions. Since the question involved in these writ petitions, are identical, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, these petitions have been connected and heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
2. Some of the questions raised in the petitions go to the root of the matter concerning the justification for the advertisement as it exists. Nonetheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision seems to cover a large part of the field and leave very narrow lane for this Court to travel in between and, therefore, what is to be decided is how far and how much the said narrow lane can be travelled.
3. At the very outset, it should be noted that in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dr. Dina Nath Shukla and another, (1997) 9 SCC 662, the directions of the Supreme Court are : "The law is declared accordingly. The Vice-Chancellor would work out the details, make fresh advertisement and have the selection done in accordance with law and appoint merits made accordingly. The directions issued by the High Court are modified accordingly." Incidentally, this ease has also considered the same advertisement dated 30th January, 1995, which is the subject matter of decision in this bunch of writ petitions. The principal question canvassed for and against in these writ petitions is whether the provisions of U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short the Act No. 4 of 1994) will be applied to the selection for the Post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in the University of Allahabad, which still in the recent past was renowned as the Oxford of the East.
4. Before going into the questions canvassed and strenuously argued, from either side one aspect need be kept in mind that Article 141 of the Constitution of India says that the law declared by the. Supreme Court shall be binding on the Courts within the territory of India.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid constitutional provisions as the main backdrop of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, the question to be decided is whether the aforesaid Act No. 4 of 1994 will be applicable to the Slate Universities in U.P. concerning all the Posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers or there is scope for limiting lis applicability to any of the three categories of teachers in the University.
6. On behalf of the Petitioners. Sri K. N. Tripathi assisted by Sri Shailendra, Sri L.P. Naithani assisted by Sri V.S. Shukla, Sri S. C. Budhwar assisted by Sri U.K. Singh and Sri Rahul Sripat have been heard at substantial length in this bunch of petitions.
7. On behalf of the Allahabad University, Sri R. N. Singh. Senior-Advocate, assisted by Sri A. P. Shahi and Sri P. S. Baghel have been heard in detail. The cause of the State has been espoused by Sri R. K. Saxena, learned standing counsel.
8. Dr Vipin Agarwal prayed that the advertisement No. 1/95 published on 30.1.1995 be quashed and Respondents be commanded not to give effect to the said advertisement. Further, mandamus should go to the Respondents not to reserve technical posts in science and technology in pursuance of the provisions contained in Act No. 4 of 1994, and further reservation formulated through Act No. 4 of 1994 he not applied to the Posts of Readers and Professors.
9. Dr Han Prakash and others have made a similar prayer only adding (hat even for the Post of Lecturers also, reservation may not be made applicable. Similarly, Dr. Ram Gopal and others pray that the advertisement published on 1.2.1995 (which is the same as detailed above) be not given effect to and mandamus should go commanding the Resp
