RAVI R.TRIPATHI - (1.) The present petition is filed by Maharaja Sayajirao University, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the University") under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgement and order dated 12.7.1999 passed by the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Application No.3 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal held that the decision of the Syndicate of the University of not accepting recommendations made by the Selection Committee vide item no.18 in its meeting dated 26.11.1998 is wrong, unlawful and otherwise unjustified. The Tribunal has set aside the same. The Tribunal further observed that, "It appears from the record of the case that vide order dated 16.3.1999 this Tribunal directed the University not to fill up one post in question in the interest of justice which is admittedly the post of Dy. Registrar belonging to "open category". There is no dispute that the said post is still vacant. In that case of the circumstances, opponent University is hereby directed to consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee de novo by which the applicant for the post of Dy Registrar (open category) is selected, through its Syndicate and to arrive at the decision as early as possible, preferably in the next meeting of the Syndicate from today. It is further directed that if the decision is against the applicant, the same will disclose the reasons in terms in black and white and the same will be communicated to the applicant in black and white. The interim relief, which is in force by which University is directed not to fill up the post in question, will remain in force upto 10 days after the applicant herein is intimated about the decision of the Syndicate which it has to take de novo in connection of this order." By the aforesaid order the application was allowed by the Tribunal.
(2.) The University challenged the aforesaid order/ judgement of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the matters relating to process of appointment/ selection as unless and until actual appointment is made, no question relating to prejudice of service conditions would arise. It was also contended that in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") only those disputes between the University and University employees, which are connected with the conditions of service of the university employees can be decided by the Tribunal. It was also contended that the judgement and order of the Tribunal was not within the jurisdiction, conferred upon the Tribunal by the Statute.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner University submitted the following facts: An advertisement was given inviting applications for various posts including the post of Deputy Registrar (one post: scheduled tribe and one post: general). The present dispute is about open category post of the Deputy Registrar. The respondent who was serving at the relevant point of time as an Office Superintendent with the University had also applied for the post of Deputy Registrar. It was also pointed out that the respondent belongs to scheduled caste. It was also submitted by learned advocate for the University that the appointing authority for the aforesaid post in view of the provisions of section 24 of the Act is Syndicate. However, for the purpose of carrying out the selection process, a committee is constituted which after due selection process sends its recommendations. In the present case, the selection committee recommended the name of the respondent for the post of Deputy Registrar (open category). The recommendations made by the Selection Committee qua the respondent were put on the agenda at serial no.18 before the Syndicate in its meeting dated 26.11.1998. The Minutes of the aforesaid meeting are at Annexure 'C' to the petition and for ready perusal item no.18 of the agenda and Resolution passed therein is produced in para 4 (iii), which is reproduced hereunder fore ready reference: "18. Consideration of the recommendation of the Selection Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor as authorized under S.R. No.33 dated 18.4.98 held in the University Office on Wednesday the 11th November 1998 to select candidate for the post of Dy Registrar in the University Office. Resolved that the recommendation of the Selection Committee held on 11.1.98 to recommend candidate for the post of Dy Registrar in the University Office be not accepted and that the post be readvertised.";