Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr B Hari Mallikarjuna Reddy vs State Of Ap on 29 July, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WP.No.2243 of 2021
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"To issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to complete the selection process afresh for recriutment of the post of Assistant Professor for the Department of Statistic and Mathematics properly with the regular Vice Chancellor officiating as Chairman in the Selection Committee.." This Court has heard Sri J.Ugra Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for Agriculture and Sri S.Harinadh Reddy, learned standing counsel for the University.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is a qualified person with a Masters in Mathematics and a Ph.D in Statistics. He applied for a job with the 3rd respondent-University and was called for an interview. The interview was conducted by the "In charge Vice-Chancellor", who was holding Full Additional Charge for the post of a Vice- Chancellor. Learned counsel submits that questioning the appointment of the said in charge Vice-Chancellor, WP.(PIL).No.134 of 2019 was filed and an interim order was granted by the Division Bench of the Court on 24.09.2019 holding that the incharge Vice-Chancellor should not proceed 2 with recruitment process. If recruitment is already commenced, the Bench directed that it should not be finalized. Learned counsel submits that thereafter as a regular Vice-Chancellor was appointed, the PIL was dismissed as infructuous in March, 2021. However, he submits that in this interim period, from September, 2019 till date, the recruitment proceedings were not concluded. As a regular Vice-Chancellor was appointed, learned counsel submits that he should be permitted to carry on and complete the selection process afresh with the regular Vice-Chancellor and chairman of the committee.
Learned counsel argues that the petitioner is constrained to move this Court in order to ensure that proper proceedings, interview etc., are held by duly qualified persons so that the appointment of the petitioner is upheld. He relies upon section 26 of the Dr.Y.S.R.Horticultural University Act, 2007 (Act, 30 of 2007) to submit that the Vice-Chancellor of this particular University can only be a qualified/eminent scientist in agriculture. Therefore, he submits that the in charge Vice-Chancellor could not conduct the interview and any appointments given by him will not be valid under law.
In reply to this, Sri Harinath Reddy Soma argues that the facts are not in dispute. However, he submits that as there was an in charge Vice-Chancellor, holding Full Additional Charge, the conduct of the interviews is not improper. He also argues that a Vice-Chancellor with Full 3 Additional Charge is on par with a regular Vice-Chancellor. He also submits that in view of the orders passed by a Division Bench in the PIL, all the results are kept in a sealed cover. The grievances of the University is that there is an urgent need to fill up all the posts as quality of education in the University accreditation etc., are likely to suffer. He points out that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued directions to carry on with the remaining interview process/selection process. Therefore, learned counsel argues that there is no need to conduct an interview afresh.
This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the Division Bench while entertaining the PIL came to a prima facie conclusion that it would not be proper for the 4th respondent therein (in charge Vice-Chancellor) to proceed with the recruitment process. The 4th respondent therein was therefore directed to proceed with the recruitment process. It is also clarified in the interim order that if the recruitment is already taken up, same shall not be finalized. As can be seen from the order, WP.(PIL) is filed seeking a writ in the nature of quo-warranto against the 5th respondent in charge Vice-Chancellor. It was pleaded that he is not eligible to hold the post under law. It is also pleaded that the placing of the 5th respondent as Full Additional Charge Vice- Chancellor is ab initio void. It is a fact that the Bench did not pass any final order in this and the writ was dismissed as infructuous on 15.03.2021, as admitted in the counter. Still 4 the fact remains that the Bench was of the prima facie opinion that the in charge Vice-Chancellor could not continue with the recruitment process.
It is also clear from a reading of section 26 of the Dr.Y.S.R.Horticultural University Act (Act 30 of 2007) that the Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University who shall be selected from a panel of „eminent scientists‟ in horticulture/agriculture. The Vice-Chancellor is selected by a committee consisting of three members. The first is the Chief-Secretary of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The second nominee is a person of eminence in the sphere of horticulture science not connected with the University and shall be of a rank of a Vice-Chancellor. The third nominee is the Director General of Indian Council for Agricultural Research or his nominee. Therefore, it is clear, for a person to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor of this particular University, he should be eminent scientist in horticulture or agriculture. The fact that the selection committee also has an expert from this field and also the Director General of ICAR clearly indicates the importance attached to this post of Vice-Chancellor of this University.
Therefore, this Court has to agree with what is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Unless and until the person of eminence in horticulture or agriculture is selected by a panel consisting of special experts, it cannot be said that 5 a Vice-Chancellor is duly appointed. Now this has been fulfilled and a full time Vice-Chancellor is appointed.
Hence, this Court agrees with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and holds that any appointments proposed to be made pursuant to the first set of interviews cannot be said to be valid interviews.
Section 28(1) does not also in the opinion of this Court clothe the in charge Vice-Chancellor with the power to conduct interviews or to appoint persons. Since the issues raised are on importance and as transparency is necessary, this Court is of the opinion that the results of the interviews held so far as shall not be declared as the Head of the interview panel was in charge Vice-Chancellor. Since a new Vice-Chancellor was appointed and admittedly he has the expertise/domain knowledge, there shall be a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to conduct interviews afresh for the post of Assistant Professor of the Department of Statistics and Mathematics pursuant to the notification dated 19.11.2018. The process should be completed as early as possible.
With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 29.07.2021 KLP