Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 16 16-17 of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.5.1989 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 2777/78 & dated 5.7.89 Review Petition No. 68(W)/89 in W.P. No. 2777/78. K. Parasaran, Amitabh Misra, S. Murlidhar and M.S. Ganesh for the Appellant.

P.P. Rao, Raja Ram Aggarwal, E.C. Aggarwala, Atul Shar- ma, Ms. Purnima Bhatt, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Lokesh Kumar, R.D. Kewalramani and M.K. Garg for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special Leave granted. The Chancellor of the Lucknow University while exercis- ing power under Section 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 ("The Act") has directed that Km. Neeliam Misra, the appellant herein should be appointed as Reader in Psychology in the University. That order has been quashed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 2777 of 1978 ,at the instance of Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal, respondent (1). This appeal is from that judgment of the High Court.

The background of the case in the barest outline may be stated as under.

The Lucknow University invited applications for appoint- ment of Reader in Psychology from candidates who possessed the prescribed qualifications. In response to the advertise- ment, several candidates filed their applications. The appellant and respondents I to 5 were some of them who offered themselves as candidates. The Committee which was constituted for selection of candidates called them for interview along with some others. After considering their qualifications, experience and relative performance in the interview, the Selection Committee graded them as follows:

Sd/- G.D. Tapase, Chancellor"

As per the decision of the Chancellor, the appellant was appointed as Reader in Psychology.

Dr. (Smt) Harmder Kaur Paintal, respondent 1, moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Chancellor's order. The Writ Petition was filed on 17 August 1978 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and it was admitted on 30 March 1979. Ten years later i.e. on 3 May 1989 the writ petition was listed for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court. On 22 May 1989, the judgment was delivered by allowing the writ petition and quashing the Chancellor's order with d direction to reconsider the matter. It seems that learned Judges had little discretion in the matter in view of an earlier decision of the High Court on the nature and scope of the Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the Act. In L.N. Mathur v. The chancellor, Lucknow Uni- versity, Lucknow & Ors., AIR 1986 All. 273, the Full Bench of the High Court by majority, inter alia, has held that the Chancellor must state explicitly the reasons for his deci- sion. The Chancellor in order to arrive at a decision has to make a judicial approach to the question and he is enjoined by the Act to act quasi-judicially. To reach that conclu- sion, the Full Bench has relied upon the observations in the Division Bench judgment in Dr. U.N. Roy v. His Excellency Sr. G.D. Tapase, (The Ex-Governor, State of Uttar Pradesh), Chancellor Allahabad University (1981 UPLBEC 309.) Following those authorities, the learned Judges in the present case have set aside the Chancellor's order making some more observations:

"Section 31(8)(a) xxxxx xxxxx Proviso: Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of the meeting of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be final."

The matter thus goes to the Chancellor for decision since the Executive Council could not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Chancellor in the circumstances has to examine whether the recommendation of the Selection Committee should be accepted or not. If any opinion by way of disagreement has been recorded by the Executive Council on that recommendation, the Chancellor has also to consider it. He must take a decision as to who should be appointed. It is indeed a decision with regard to appointment of a particular person or persons in the light of the recommendation and opinion if any, of the two statu- tory authorities. Such a decision appears to be of an admin- istrative character much the same way as the decision of the Executive Council with regard to appointment. In matters relating to public employment whether by promotion or direct recruitment, only requirement to be complied with is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There shall be equality of opportunity and no discrimination only on ground of religion, race, caste, sex, dissent, place of birth or residence or any of them. The eligible candidate has a right to have his case considered in accordance with law. In the instant case, that require- ment has been complied with by the Selection Committee. There is no further right with the candidates to make repre- sentation to the Executive Council and much less to the Chancellor. Reference however, was made to the observation of this Court in Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Ors., [1976] 3 SCC 585 at 592. While dismissing the writ petition challenging the recommendation made by the Selec- tion Committee of the Lucknow University for appointment of a candidate as Professor, it was observed that "the ag- grieved candidate has remedy by way of representation to the Executive Council and an application for re-