DR.S.D.SANKHYAN Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH KRISHI VISHVA VIDYALAYA
LAWS(HPH)-1991-4-11
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 08,1991

DR.S.D.SANKHYAN Appellant
VERSUS
HIMACHAL PRADESH KRISHI VISHVA VIDYALAYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEVINDER GUPTA,J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is an Associate Professor of Soil Sciences and Water Management in the respondent -University, has, in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/22"? of the Constitution of India, prayed for quashing the decision taken by the Board of Management, on the recommendation of the selection committee, approving the appointment of two incumbents for the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Science) and Chief Scientist (Spal Science/Agronomy with specialisation in Water Management).
(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent -University issued an advertisement for filling up, amongst others, the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Science) and Chief Scientist (Soil Science/ Agronomy) with specialisation in Water Management (briefly the latter post is to be called as the post in question). The essential qualification for both the posts in question was, amongst others. Ph. D. degree or equivalent in the subject with consistently good academic record. Petitioner was one of the candidates for both the posts. He was interviewed by the selection committee but was not recommended for being appointed by it. Instead it recommended the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Chief Scientist (Soil Science/Agronomy with Specialisation in Water Management) and the recommendation so made was approved by the Board of Management Respondent No. 4, as such, was appointed against the said post. The other candidate, who was appointed against the post of Chief Scientist (Agronomy/Soil Sciences) has not been arraigned as party by the petitioner in this writ petition.
(3.) The challenge made by the petitioner is three -fold. Firstly, that the composition of the selection committee was not proper. The contention of the petitioner is that statute 4 6 of the respondent -University which provides for the composition of selection committee requires that three subject specialists, amongst others, should be from outside the University. Two out of the same are to be nominated by the Chancellor whereas the third by the Vice -Chancellor. According to the petitioner, Dr. Ranjodh Singh, one of the members of the selection committee, as subject specialist, was not from outside of the University, inasmuch he was a member of the Academic Council, which is an authority of the University as laid down in section 9 (ii) of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya Act (briefly the Act) and as such was not qualified as a member of the selection committee.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.