Ram Chandra vs State Of U.P Anr Ors.

Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Writ Petition

No. 17066 of 2014, whereby the said writ petition was

dismissed.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as

under:

1

3. The Respondent­Bundelkhand University (hereinafter

referred to as “the University”) had published an advertisement

for making appointments to various posts of teaching faculty in

the year 2002.

4. The appellant had applied in response to the said

advertisement and was interviewed by a Selection Committee,

which was constituted in accordance with sub­section (4) of

Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Act’).

5. Though, the appellant was not found suitable for the post

advertised, he came to be appointed as a Lecturer (Geology)

vide order dated 28th February, 2002.

6. Another advertisement came to be issued in the year 2002

for the post of Reader in the subject of Geology. The Selection

Committee, which was constituted in accordance with the

statutory provisions, found the appellant suitable and

recommended him for appointment as a Reader in the subject

of Geology. The Executive Council of the University, in its

2 meeting held on 1st February, 2003, accepted the said

recommendation. The appellant was, accordingly, appointed as

Reader in the subject of Geology.

7. It appears that after a long period following the appellant’s

appointment, certain complaints were made to the Hon’ble

Chancellor that the appellant’s appointment was not in

accordance with law. The Hon’ble Chancellor therefore,

initiated suo motu enquiry under Section 68 of the 1973 Act. In

the enquiry, the Hon’ble Chancellor found that the appointment

of the appellant was not in accordance with law and as such,

he issued an order dated 3 rd March, 2014, under Section 68 of

the 1973 Act, directing to set aside the successive

appointments and promotion of the appellant. In pursuance

thereof, the appellant’s service came to be terminated vide order

dated 7th March, 2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant

filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The

High Court of Allahabad vide impugned order dated 25 th March,

3 2014, dismissed the Writ Petition No.17066 of 2014. Aggrieved

thereby, the present appeal.

8. We have heard Ms. Neela Gokhale, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Agarwal,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent­

University.

9. The Hon’ble Chancellor, while finding that the appellant’s

appointment was not legal, has observed that the Selection

Committee to be constituted under Section 31(4)(a) of the 1973

Act was required to have three experts to be nominated by the

Hon’ble Chancellor. The Hon’ble Chancellor found that neither

the University sent the requisition for nomination of the subject

experts nor he had appointed any subject experts. It was

therefore found that the selection which was contrary to the

provisions of Section 31 of the 1973 Act, was not sustainable in

law.

10. Undisputedly, even when the appellant was appointed as

a lecturer in the year 2002 vide order dated 28 th February,

4 2002, he had responded to the advertisement and his selection

was done after the selection procedure as prescribed under the

1973 Act was followed. Insofar as the post of Reader is

concerned, an advertisement was specifically issued for the said

post. The appellant had applied in response to the said

advertisement. The Selection Committee having two subject

experts, interviewed him. After finding him to be suitable, the

Executive Council of the University accepted the

recommendation of the Selection Committee and only

thereafter, the appellant was appointed. It could thus be seen

that the selection of the appellant was done after following the

selection procedure as prescribed by the 1973 Act.

11. A perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor

would reveal that the Hon’ble Chancellor has observed that

after year 2001, the University had not sought nomination for

panel of experts.

12. A further perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble

Chancellor would reveal that the Hon’ble Chancellor had

5 forwarded the names of the following persons in response to the

letter of the Vice­Chancellor dated 25th May, 2001:­

1. Prof. S.K. Lunkad, Kurukshetra University, Haryana.

2. Prof. N.K. Singh, Patna University, Bihar.

3. Prof. V.K. Verma, University of Delhi.

4. Prof. S. Mukherjee, University of Calcutta (WB)

5. Prof. Y.P. Gupta, University of Jammu (J&K)

13. Perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor

itself would reveal that the Selection Committee, which selected

the appellant for the post of Reader, consisted of the following

members:­

1. Prof. Ramesh Chandra – Vice­Chancellor/Chairman.

2. Prof. S.K. Lunkad – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.

3. Prof. Y.P. Gupta – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.

4. Prof. S.P. Singh – HOD & Dean Faculty of Science.

5. Shri V.K. Sinha – Registrar/Secretary.

14. It could thus be seen that Prof. S.K. Lunkad and Prof. Y.P.

Gupta, who were nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor vide

communication dated 13th July, 2001, were very much there in

the Selection Committee.

15. It can thus clearly be seen that the Selection Committee

consisted of two Chancellor’s nominees. In any case, if fresh

6 nominations were not sought for by the University from the

Hon’ble Chancellor, the appellant cannot be faulted with. It is

a matter of fact that the appellant came to be appointed after

undergoing entire selection process as required under the

statute. The order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor itself

would reveal that the two Chancellor’s nominees were available

in the Selection Committee which selected the appellant.

16. In that view of the matter, we find that the order dated 3 rd

March, 2014, passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated

7th March, 2014, passed by the Registrar of the University and

the impugned order passed by the High Court are not

sustainable in law. There is no finding in the impugned order

of the High Court that the appellant does not possess the

requisite qualification. The appellant had served for a period of

12 years before the order directing his termination was passed

by the Hon’ble Chancellor. In that view of the matter, we are of

the considered view that the termination of the appellant is not

sustainable in law.

7

17. We are informed that during the pendency of the appeal,

the appellant has already superannuated. We will, therefore,

have to accordingly mould the relief.

18. It is also stated at the bar that in view of the order of

status quo passed by this court on 9 th May, 2014, the appellant

still continues to occupy the University accommodation. After

superannuating, the appellant is not entitled to continue with

the said accommodation.

19. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 3rd March, 2014, passed by the

Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated 7th March, 2014,

passed by the Registrar of the University and the

impugned order dated 25th March, 2014, passed by

the High Court of Allahabad are quashed and set

aside.

(iii) Since the termination of the appellant is set aside,

the appellant would be entitled for all the terminal

8 benefits treating the period between the date of

termination and the date of retirement as a period in

continuous service. However, the appellant would

not be entitled for back wages for the period during

which he was out of employment.

(iv) All the terminal benefits to which the appellant is

entitled, shall be paid to him within a period of three

months from today.

(v) The appellant is directed to handover vacant and

peaceful possession of the University accommodation

in his occupation within a period of three months

from today.

20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

…..….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI;

MAY 10, 2022.

9