1980 Supreme(MP) 244

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. L. Oza, J.
ANURADHA SHOMESHWAR GUPTA
Versus
RAVISHANKAR UNIVERSITY RAIPUR
Decided On : Sep 04,1980

Headnote:(1) University Laws-Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.)-Ordinance No.4-Selection Committee not considering provision while recommending appointment-Executive Council also over looking the fact-appointment is in contravention of Ordinance No.4.

       The report of the Selection Committee should indicate some material to show that the individual merits were investigated and proposed, is not gone into; still it could not be doubted that from the minutes of the Selection Committee, it is clear that it did not consider Ordinance No. 4 or the advertisement which was the requirement of the ordinance for selection of a candidate and that the Selection Committee did not take notice of the fact that it could only consider the case of a candidate having a Master's degree only under special circumstances i.e. when candidates holding Doctor's degree are not available or, as in the present case, available, but are not found suitable. It is, therefore, clear that this report of the Selection Committee when was accepted by the Executive Council, it also did not consider that as this report does not show compliance with Ordinance No.4 and the conditions of the advertisement it could not have been accepted. But the Executive Council also without taking notice of Ordinance No.4 and the conditions of the advertisement accepted this recommendation and therefore, the appointment made by the Executive Council of the petitioner, after accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee, is in contravention of Ordinance No.4.

       [Para 22]

       (2) University Laws-Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, (M.P.) - S.49(4) -recommendation for appointment under-nature of-it should show that committee has investigated merits or demerits of candidates.

       The language of this sub-section shows that this committee is expected to investigate the merits of various candidates including some aminent person distinguished in scholarship who may not have applied. This language, therefore, indicates that the committee is expected to investigate the merits of the candidates and then to assess the relative merits and make a recommendation to the Executive Council of the names of persons whom it considers suitable for the post and it is contemplated that a list will be arranged in order of merit.

       It is apparent that when the committee is to make recommendation to a body, which has to take a final decision and the recommendation is the result of investigation and assessment of merits, it is expected of the recommendatory committee to indicate the process that was employed and the facts that were found. In any event, it is expected of the recommendatory committee to submit its report in a manner in which it will be clear to the body to which the recommendations are made the committee bas applied its mind to the respective merits of the candidates. 1773 JLJ 518 distinguished, AIR 1965 SC 1767, Civil A. No 44 of 1964, decided on 9-12-1964, 1964 A. C. 40, ALR 1976 SC 1785 and AIR 1970 SC 1302 relied on. [Para 21]

       (3) University Laws-Vishwa Vidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.)-Ss. 12(4)(a) and 49 -Selection Committee constituted under S. 49-nature of-it is a recommendatory committee of temporary nature-it is neither a committee or body of University-no notice is required to be given to it.

       Grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that no notice was issued to the Selection Committee and that a notice was not issued to the petitioner. It was contended by the learned counsel that the authority, committee or body used in section 12 (4)(a) will cover the case of the Selection Committee as it is a committee constituted under section 49.

       Held: Apparently the Selection Committee within the meaning of language used in section 49 could not be said to be an authority, committee or body of the University. The Selection Committee under the scheme of section 49 is only a recommendatory committee which is coustituted temporarily for conduct of a selection vis a vis particular advertisement for a particular post. It also clear that the functions of the Selection Committee are over as soon as it submits its report to the Executive Council and it is the Executive Council, which is a body of the University, which takes decision. [Para 24]

       (4) University Laws-Vishwa Vidayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.)-S. 49(5) -Executive Council is not bound to follow decision of Selection Committee-it has power not to accept such decision.

       It was contended by the learned counsel that in view of section 49(5), the Executive Council was bound to follow the decision of the Selection Committee and therefore, so long as the decision of the Selection Committee was not set aside or annulled, the Executive Committee was bound to accept it.

       Held: The Executive Council will make the final selection out of the persons recommended by the Selection Committee under sub clause (4) and the only rider put in the proviso is that if the Executive Council proposes to make the appointment otherwise than in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, it is expected to give reasons and it has to submit its proposal for sanction to the Kuladhipati.

       In the circumstances of the present case, it could not be doubted that if it had come to the notice of the Executive Council that the Selection Committee did not observe Ordinance No.4 pertaining to the requirement of educational qualification as was clearly indicated in the advertisement, the Executive Council itself might have chosen not to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee and it could not be argued that the Executive Council has committed any mistake. It is, therefore, clear that in view of the scheme of the Act and the scheme of section 49, the contention that the Executive Council was bound to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be accepted'

       (5) University Laws-Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.)-Ss.11(6) & 12(4)(a)-person not falling in category of officer within S. 11(6)-no notice to such person under S. 12 (4)(a) is necessary before termination of services who was appointed as probationer only.

       It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner is an officer of the University, proviso to section 12 (4)(a) requires a notice to show cause to even an officer and in absence of a notice to show cause issued to the petitioner, the proceedings of the Executive Council and the consequential annulment of the petitioner's appointment is bad in law.

       Held: Section 12 (4)(a) talks of officer, authority Committee or body of the University constituted by or under the Act Section 11 provides as to who will be the officers of the University. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fall within the category of officers enumerated in section 11. Sub clause (6) of section 11 talks of such officers in the service of the University as may be declared by the statutes to be the officers of the University and it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under any statute, a Lecturer in the Teaching Department of the University, has been declared to be an officer of the University. Apparently, therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the proviso to sub-clause (4) of section 12, a notice to the petitioner was necessary cannot be accepted. [Para 26]

       Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refer to any rules to indicate that when the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that initial appointment bas been held to be irregular or illegal by Kuladhipati, still a notice to show cause was necessary especially when the petitioner's appointment was wholly as probationer. 1969 Lab. IC 874, 1971 ALJ 274 and 1962 ALJ 289 distinguished. 1960 JLJ 397 relied on. [Para 27]