Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

State Of Rajasthan vs Raj Kumar Jain Son Of Shri P.C. Jain on 28 February, 2020

Bench: Sabina, Mahendar Kumar Goyal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1198/2019

                                          In

             S.B. Civil Writ petition No.2288/2019

1.     State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Government
       of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The      State     of       Rajasthan,       through         Additional   Chief
       Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government
       of Rajasthan, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.     The University of Rajasthan, through Chancellor, Raj
       Bhawan, Civil Lines, Jaipur.
4.     The University of Rajasthan, through Registrar, University
       of Rajasthan, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.
                                                     ----Appellants-respondents

Versus Raj Kumar Jain Son of Shri P.C. Jain, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Jain, Resident of Plot No. 205, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta on behalf of Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 28/02/2020 Appellants-State has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.

Learned State-counsel has submitted that as per Section 10 Clause 5 of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1946"), the Chancellor has right to cause an inquiry to be made by such person or persons as he or she (Downloaded on 03/03/2020 at 09:31:25 PM) (2 of 6) [SAW-1198/2019] may direct in respect of any matter connected with the University. The Chancellor had received reports with regard to irregularities committed by the respondent. Hence, the Chancellor had intervened and kept in abeyance the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the respondent vide order dated 07.08.2018 for the post of Deputy Registrar, University.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that respondent was duly selected by the Selection Committee as Deputy Registrar of the University and the selection was approved by the Syndicate. Hence, the Chancellor had no power to keep in abeyance the order dated 07.08.2018 whereby, the respondent was appointed as Deputy Registrar, University.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that five aggrieved persons had filed writ petitions challenging the action of the University in not allowing them to join as Deputy Registrar despite issuance of appointment letters. However, State has filed an appeal only in case of respondent and had not chosen to file appeal in the case of other four petitioners. In pursuance of the order dated 26.02.2019 all the five candidates have joined on the post of Deputy Registrar.

Respondent had applied for the post of Deputy Registrar in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.01.2017 and had submitted his application form on 26.01.2017. Respondent appeared before the Selection Committee and the Selection Committee recommended the name of respondent No.1 for appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar. The Syndicate accepted the recommendations/minutes of the Selection Committee. Thereafter, respondent was issued appointment order (Downloaded on 03/03/2020 at 09:31:25 PM) (3 of 6) [SAW-1198/2019] dated 07.08.2018 whereby, he was appointed on the post of Deputy Registrar. However, at the behest of the Chancellor, respondent was not permitted to join. Hence, the respondent filed the writ petition challenging the action of the Chancellor whereby, he was not permitted to join his duties as Deputy Registrar. The writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.02.2019. Hence, the present appeal filed by the State.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1974") read as under:-

"[[5.] Constitution of selection committees. - (1) For every selection of a teacher or of an officer in a University, there shall be constituted a committee consisting of the following:-
(i) Vice-Chancellor of the University concerned, who shall be the Chairman of the committee;
(ii) an eminent educationist to be nominated by the Chancellor for a period of one year;
(iii) an eminent educationist to be nominated by the State Government for a period of one year;
(iv) one member of the Syndicate to be nominated by the State Government for a period of one year; and
(v) such other persons as members specified in column

2 of the Schedule for the selection of the teachers and officers mentioned in column 1 thereof:

Provided that where the appointment of a teacher is to be made in the faculty of agriculture in any University or in any University-College imparting instruction of guiding research in agriculture there shall be one more expert to be nominated by the Syndicate out of a panel of names (Downloaded on 03/03/2020 at 09:31:25 PM) (4 of 6) [SAW-1198/2019] recommended by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research:
Provided further that the Selection Committee for teaching posts in the faculty of engineering and technology shall also include an expert to be nominated by the Syndicate out of a panel of names recommended by the All India Council of Technical Education:
[Provided also that the Selection Committee for teaching posts in the faculty of Engineering and Architecture shall also include an expert to be nominated by the Syndicate out of a panel of names recommended by the Council of Architecture.] (2) The eminent educationists nominated under clause
(ii) and clause (iii) of sub-section (1) and the member of the Syndicate nominated under clause (iv) of the said sub-section shall be members of every Selection Committee constituted during the course of one year from the date of his nomination [:] [Provided that the member for a Selection Committee nominated under clauses (ii), (iii) or (iv) of sub-section (1) shall continue to be the member of every Selection Committee even after the expiry of his term until a fresh nomination is made by the Chancellor or, as the case may be, by the State Government subject, however, that fresh nomination of such member for Selection Committee shall be made within a period not exceeding three months from the date of expiry of his term.] (3) No person shall be eligible to be nominated as an expert on any Selection Committee in any one year if he has been a member of any two Selection Committees during the course of the same year.] [[6]. Procedure of selection committees. - [(1) The quorum required for the meeting of a Selection Committee constituted under [section 5] shall not be less than [five] out of which at least two shall be the (Downloaded on 03/03/2020 at 09:31:25 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-1198/2019] experts, if the selection to be made is for the post of a Professor or Reader, and at least one shall be expert, if the selection to be made is for the post of a Lecturer or any other post of a teacher equivalent thereto. The quorum required for the meeting of a Selection Committee for the selection of non-teaching posts shall be not less than one-half of the number of the members of the Selection Committee, out of which at least one shall be an expert.] (2) The Selection Committee shall make its recommendations to the Syndicate. If the Syndicate disapproves the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Vice-Commissioner of the University concerned shall submit such recommendations along with reasons for disapproval given by the Syndicate to the Chancellor for his consideration and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final.
(3) Every Selection Committee shall be bound by the qualifications laid down in the relevant law of the University concerned for the post of a teacher or, as the case may be, of an officer.

[(4) The Selection Committee, while making its recommendations to the Syndicate under sub-section (2) shall prepare a list of candidates selected by it in order of merit and shall further prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of 50% of the vacancies in the posts of teachers or officers for which the Selection Committee was constituted under subs-section (1) of section 5 and shall forward the main list and the reserve list along with its recommendations to the Syndicate.]] "

Thus, a perusal of the above provisions reveal that Selection Committee is constituted and the Selection Committee shall make its recommendations to the Syndicate and in case the Syndicate disapproves the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the (Downloaded on 03/03/2020 at 09:31:25 PM) (6 of 6) [SAW-1198/2019] Vice-Commissioner of the University concerned shall submit such recommendations along with reasons for disapproval given by the Syndicate to the Chancellor for his consideration and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final. As per Section 12 of the Act of 1974, the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law. So much of the relevant law as provides for the matters covered by this Act shall, as from the commencement of this Act, cease to have effect as respects those matters.
Learned State-counsel has placed reliance on Section 10 Clause 5 of the Act of 1946 in support of his arguments that the Chancellor had the right to cause an inquiry with regard to any matter connected with the University. However, as per Section 6 Clause 2 of the Act of 1974 the matter shall come up before the Chancellor only in case the recommendation made by Selection Committee was not approved by the Syndicate. However, in the present case, the recommendation made by the Selection Committee has been duly approved by the Syndicate. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the Chancellor could not resort to Section 10 of the Act of 1946. It has also been pointed out during the course of the arguments that now in pursuance to the appointment order respondent has already joined on the post of Deputy Registrar.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
                                    (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J                                                (SABINA),J

                                   Manish/16




                                                         (Downloaded on 03/03/2020 at 09:31:25 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)