A. P. Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of the present writ petition sought for quashing selection of respondent no. 4 on the basis of selection held by respondent no. 2 on 15-12-1985 and also to quash order of respondent no. 1, communicated through letter dated 25th of September, 1986, Annexure XII to the writ petition and also for quashing the recommendation of respondent no. 1, dated 27th of September, 1986 appointing opposite party no. 4.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner no. 1, he is appointed as lecturer in the Hindi Department in the evening classes on the recommendation of the selection committee at its meeting held on 23-1-1984 earlier. The respondent no. 4 along with three other persons was appointed on the basis of the said recommendation. However, there was some dispute at initial stages between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 but that is not relevant and is not being referred to for purpose of the question involved in the present writ petition. The respondent no. 3 got advertisement made on 10-4-1985 for appointment on substantive vacancy of Hindi lecturer. The petitioners also applied forth said post in pursuance of the said advertisement, possessing requisite qualifications. Interview for the said selection was held on 15-2-1985. The petitioner no. 1 appeared before the incomplete selection committee. However, petitioner no. 2 and some other candidates did not appear before the said committee and submitted a representation to the respondent no. 3 specifically mentioning that the quorum of the said selection committee was not complete. The said representation has been filed as Annexure IX to the present writ petition. It is thereafter that the petitioners came to know that respondent no. 4 was recommended by the said Selection Committee to the Executive council. However, since no decision was taken by the Executive Council within four months as stipulated, the matter was referred by the Vice Chancellor to the Chancellor. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter sent his representations to the respondent no. 1 against the said selection which are annexed as Annexures X and XI to the writ petition. The respondent no. 1 thereafter rejected the said representation on the ground of it being lime barred which is also subject matter of challenge by means of the present writ petition. It is not necessary for us to go into various details of the factual averments. The main question involved in the petition is whether the quorum prescribed under the Statute was complete or not when the selection committee met to make selection for Hindi lecturer. It is not disputed as has been stated in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the writ petition that the selection committee met with Vice Chancellor and the expert only. The total number of members of the selection committee consisted of Vice Chancellor, head of the department and two experts. Thus out of four members only two members met for making selection which is subject matter of challenge before us. This is also not disputed that the recommendation of the selection committee was sent to the Executive Council which did not make any decision within a period of four months and then the matter was referred to the chancellor for decision. The chancellor endorsed the selection made by the selection committee appointing respondent no. 4. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter made representation against the said selection to the Chancellor which was rejected being time barred. The petition has raised two points. Firstly, the quorum of selection committee not being there the selection of respondent no. 4 is liable to be quashed ; secondly holding representation of the petitioner under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act time barred is also wrong as time reckoned from the date the selection committee met cannot be proper as in the eyes of law there was no selection committee meeting when quorum was not complete.
(3.) ACCORDING to the Chancellor the selection committee met on December 15, 1985, which was the date on which the question could have been raised and admittedly the representation being of 23rd August, 1986, and this being more than three months from that date, is barred by time. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that if the selection committee itself has not been duly constituted, the question of making representation on the date of meeting of the selection committee would not arise. Further, it has been contended that the petitioner no. 2 on the date of selection has specifically raised objection about the constitution of the selection committee. Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, specifically provides that the Chancellor may in exceptional cases act suo moto or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso. Thus the question of three months is not an absolute bar. If he would have thought that the selection which was made was not proper, he could have exercised that power. However, we would not like to ask the chancellor for deciding afresh the main matter as to the lack of quorum as it goes to the root of the controversy and it would be proper to decide it in the present writ petition.;