TRILOKI NATH SINGH Vs. BHAGWAN DIN MISRA
LAWS(SC)-1990-8-74
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on August 10,1990

TRILOKI NATH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
BHAGWAN DIN MISRA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ADWAVE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-1-18] [REFERRED]
RAJKUMAR PODDAR VS. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GAU)-1998-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
S B DWARAKANATH VS. R DILIP KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-1992-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
A GOPAL MENON VS. UNIVERSITY OF HYDRABAD [LAWS(APH)-2009-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
SARASWATHI VS. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
T THIRUNALASUNDARI VS. REGISTRAR BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAM MURTI CHATURVEDI VS. CHANCELLOR SAMPURNANAND SANSKRIT VISHVAVIDYALAYA [LAWS(ALL)-1998-5-134] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE PATHAK VS. CHANCELLOR DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAYA GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-146] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA PATERIA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2002-1-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE PRASAD, S/O JAGESHWAR RAI VS. PATNA UNIVERSITY PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2014-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA SINHA VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
MALINEE GOSWAMI VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
MALINEE GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEETA SONKAR AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYA CHANDRA PANDEY VS. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1997-2-89] [REFERRED TO]
AJITHA VS. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY [LAWS(KER)-2001-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
Sanjeev Yadav VS. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education [LAWS(MPH)-2006-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
DEBRAJ SARKAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-6-142] [REFERRED TO]
DR. MALINEE GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-2014-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
DR. G. K. RAI VS. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-109] [REFERRED TO]
M. ISMAIL FARUQI VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LUCKNOW AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-125] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHANDRA PANDEY VS. NATIONAL MUSEUM INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF ART, CONSE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-547] [REFERRED]
DR. (SMTI.) MANALISHA CHOUDHURY VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-87] [REFERRED TO]
SREEJA V. VS. P.SATHEESH [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-56] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.M.KASLIWAL - (1.)THIS Civil Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 3-12-1974. The High Court by a common order disposed of number of Writ Petitions but we are concerned with Writ Petition No. 418 / 74 filed by Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra who is respondent No. 1 before us.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case are that in the month of August, 1973 an advertisement appeared in the daily Newspaper "National Herald" inviting applications for the post of Reader in 'Linguistics' in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow. Interview of the candidates was held on 8-4-74 at 3.00 p.m. by a Selection Committee consisting of five members viz. the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Dr. K. N. Shukla, Head of the Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages Lucknow University, Dr. Bhagirath Misra, Head of the Department of Hindi Saugar University, Saugar, Dr. Harbanslal Sharma, Head of the Department of Hindi, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Shri, Shyam Sunder, Head of the Department of Hindi Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. It may be noted that the three experts from outside as mentioned above were experts in Hindi Literature and not Linguistic experts. The Selection Committee after interviewing the various candidates recommended the name of the appellant, Dr. Triloki Nath Singh for being appointed to the post of Reader. Linguistics in Hindi Department and the respondent No. 1, Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra was placed in the second position.
Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court inter alia stating that the Selection Committee was not a legally constituted Committee and its recommendation should not be .acted upon. The Writ petition was contested on behalf of the University as well as by the appellant. The High Court held that the prospectus of the University showed that 'Linguistics' was a separate subject of study. There were two courses in M.A. Part-I and Part-II, one in Hindi Language and Literature, and the other in Linguistics. The High Court observed that even candidates, having. passed the B.A. Examination in Sanskrit or English, or M. A. Examination in Sanskrit or English were also eligible for admission in M.A. in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi. Linguistics was thus a separate subject of study and even graduates, who might not have passed the B.A. Examination with Hindi, were entitled to be admitted and awarded the degree of M.A. in Linguistics' The Chancellor under Statute 171 of the University was required to nominate experts out of the panel of experts in the subject of 'Linguistics'. The High Court further held that having regard to the fact that 'Linguistics' was a separate subject of study in the University of Lucknow and the Chancellor had drawn a panel of experts in 'Linguistics', the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn for the subject of Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity, substantially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee, which could not have been cured under S. 66(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter as the Act of 1973) and as such the recommendation of the Selection Committee was liable to be quashed.

The High Court as a result of the above findings allowed writ petition No. 418/ 74 and quashed the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 8/04/1974 for appointment to the post of Reader in 'Linguistics' in the Department of Hindi. Dr. Triloki Nath Singh has thus filed the present appeal challenging the order of the High Court.

(3.)WE have heard counsel for both the parties. It may be mentioned that' the Lucknow University neither filed any appeal against the order of the High Court nor arty counsel appeared on its behalf before us. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Explanation II to sub-sec. (5) of S. 31 of the Act of 1973 the experts drawn out of the panel of experts in Hindi could make selection of Reader in 'Linguistics' in the Department of Hindi.
It was further contended that in view of the fact that a Reader in 'Lingtisties' was to be appointed in the Department of Hindi as such experts in Hindi Language and Literature were also qualified to act as experts for the selection of Reader in 'Linguistics'. Learned counsel tried to seek support from the papers taught for M.A. in Linguistics as well as for M.A. in Hindi in order to convince that some papers were common to both the subjects, and as such there was nothing wrong or illegal in case the experts of Hindi Language and Literature were appointed for the selection of Reader in Linguistics.

;


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