SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(Online)(All) 30

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
, J
Shukla S. N. (Dr.) v. Chancellor Lucknow University
Writ Petition No. 226 of 1959



The Chancellor's authority allows for resolving seniority disputes in academia, despite procedural lapses, with seniority determined primarily by age.

Headnote:(A) University Act - Sections 20(1), 23(6), 31(A), 39 - Statutes of the University of Lucknow - Seniority and appointment of Professors - The controversy arose from the Chancellor's order that Dr. Sen is senior to Dr. Shukla, contesting the latter's substantive appointment as a temporary post. The Court found the Chancellor acted within his power under Section 39 to determine the issue of seniority despite procedural shortcomings. (Paras 25, 26)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement for the authority to afford an opportunity to an affected party is paramount in quasi-judicial decisions. However, the Court concluded that the determination of seniority ultimately justified the Chancellor's decision. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and Dr. Sen were appointed Professors of Chemistry at the same time, but a dispute arose regarding their seniority when the Chancellor ruled Dr. Sen senior based on the alleged temporary nature of Dr. Shukla's appointment.

Findings of Court:
The Chancellor’s decision to declare Dr. Sen senior over Dr. Shukla was upheld, contingent on the fact that the defined seniority indicated Dr. Sen's seniority.

Issues: The Court addressed the legal authority of the Chancellor over determining seniority and procedural adherence concerning natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The Chancellor's authority under Section 39 permits him to resolve issues of seniority even in light of procedural omissions, reaffirming that seniority is determined by age and not merely by the nature of appointment.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appointment process for professors (Para 1 , 2)

1. The petitioner, who is Dr. S.N. Shukla, is a Professor of Chemistry in the Lucknow University. The third respondent, Dr. A.B. Sen is also a Professor in the same Department. The other two respondents are the Chancellor of the University and the Lucknow University as such.

2. Dr. A.C. Chatterji who was the then Professor of Chemistry retired on the 30th April, 1950, and it became necessary to make an appointment in the vacancy thus created. Earlier in January, 1958, the University Grants Commission had Ira pursuance of their scheme for the development of the higher scientific education during the Second Five Year Plan sanctioned various grants one of which made provision for the entertainment of one further Professor of Chemistry in this University on condition that the State Government also placed a matching grant of similar amount to meet the cost of the post. Appointment of two Professors thus became necessary. An advertisement inviting applications from candidates for these posts and some other posts was then published in the papers, it was thus. -
"UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW. 
Applications are invited for the following posts of Professors in the grade of Rs. 800-50-1250 and Assistant Professors in the grade of Rs. 300-20-500 E.B. - 25-800. Probation two years. Benefits of Provident Fund available under Rules. Knowledge of Hindi will count as an additional qualification: Professors :
1. Two Professors of Chemistry
2. One Professor of Bio - Chemistry
3. One. Professor of Statistics
4. One Professor of Geology.
Candidates must possess high academic qualifications and substantial experience of teaching post graduate classes and of guiding research in their respective subjects and specialty. They should also have a well established reputation for scholarship based on original contributions and research publications."
In response to the above advertisement Dr. Shukla and Dr. Sen and a few others whose names are not relevant applied for appointment in the two vacancies. The power to make appointments of teachers of the University, to which category a Professor also belongs, belongs under S.20(1), of the Act to the Executive Council. The above power, however, is subject to the provisions of Statutes; at the same time, Sub-Section (1) of S.31 - A has imposed the further limitation on it that an appointment as teacher shall be made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee which is one of the authorities of the University. The Selection Committee, therefore, met on the 7th November, 1958 and interviewed six candidates including the aforementioned two persons and made the following recommendation : -
"It was resolved to recommend that Dr. A.B. Sen. M.Sc. Ph.D., be appointed Professor of Chemistry vice Dr. A.C. Chatterji, on Rs. 800/- p.m. in the grade of Rs. 800-50-1250.
"It was further resolved that the other appointment be considered later.''
The Committee thus confined its recommendation on this date with respect to the vacancy which occurred consequent upon the retirement of Dr. Chatterji and in its case suggested the candidature of Dr. Sen. No recommendation was made at the moment for appointment to the post created pursuant to the grant sanctioned by the University Grants Commission. There was, however, another meeting of the Selection Committee on the 18th December, 1958, in which it resolved that Dr. S.N. Shukla, i.e. the petitioner be appointed in the post sanctioned by the Commission.
Thereupon the Executive Council, accepting the two recommendations of the Selection Committee, resolved on December 20, 1958 that Dr. Sen and Dr. Shukla shall be appointed to the two posts of Professors of Chemistry. There is no doubt that the two gentlemen then took over charge of the respective posts to which they had been appointed by the Executive Council.












3 - 4. Sub-Section (6) of S.23 of the Act requires that there shall be a Head in each Department of teaching who shall be respo




























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top