- (1.) WE have heard Shri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondent no.1. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi -respondent no. 2. The respondent nos. 3, 4, and 5 are represented by Shri Ajit Kumar Singh.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23/28.12.2010 passed by the respondents. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement no. 2/2011 dated 12.1.2011 issued by the respondents. By the impugned order dated 28.12.2010 the Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidya Peeth, Varanasi took a decision on the recommendations made by the Executive Council of the University regarding selections of the teachers including the petitioner placed at serial No. 2, in waiting list, for Lecturer in 'Political Science' in the reserved category of Other Backward Class. A number of writ petitions were filed challenging the same orders in respect of other teachers.
(3.) IN Krishna Kumar Singh and others vs. State of UP and others : (2011) 2 UPLBEC 1482 (Writ Petition No. 3561 of 2011 decided on April 22, 2011) we allowed the writ petition in respect of Shri Krishna Kumar Singh (the petitioner) in that case, for appointment on the post of Lecturer in the subject 'Sociology'. After narrating the history of the case, in which the recommendations were made by the Executive Council, we held that under Section 31 (5) (1) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the life of the panel of experts is three years. Even if one expert, where the other expert has been asked in writing and has also been informed telephonically by the Vice Chancellor, is not present, the quorum of selection committee does not suffer from any fatal defect. The facts and circumstances, in which the matter came up before the Chancellor have been discussed in Krishna Kumar Singh's case and need not be reiterated again. The legal position, on which the writ petition filed by Krishna Kumar Singh, was allowed, is quoted from the judgment as follows: - 14. We agree with the submission of Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the panel of the experts provided by the Chancellor, under Section 31 (5) (a) of the Act was valid for a period of three years. Whenever a selection is to be held, the Vice Chancellor has to request for the names of the experts from out of the said panel to be called in order of striatum . The selection committee can proceed with the selections, only if the quorum of the selection committee is complete. The quorum is half of the members of the selection committee subject to the conditions that at least one expert agrees for the recommendation, in case of lecturer and two in case of readers and professors. Where one of the experts, informed in writing by the Vice Chancellor, had given his consent, recorded by the Vice Chancellor on the copy of the letter, could not attend the meeting of the selection committee, the selection could not be treated to be invalid. In such case the recommendation of one of the expert in case of post of lecturer and two experts in case of post of Readers and Professors is sufficient for a valid recommendation. If the second expert in case of Lecturer and the third expert in case of Reader and Professor were unable to attend the meeting of the selection committee, the irregularity in the meeting of the selection will not vitiate the selections. 15. In the present case there is sufficient material on record to show that the Vice Chancellor had requested the Chancellor to make recommendation of the experts from out of the panel of expert which was valid. The office of the Chancellor had provided the list of experts for each subject. The Vice Chancellor had informed the experts in writing and had also taken care to inform them on telephone. He had recorded their agreement to attend the meeting of the selection committee. One of them in each case, could not come to attend the meeting. The minimum number of experts, to recommend for selection were present in the meeting. 16. The quorum of the selection committee in case of each of the petitioner was complete. In the recommendations the mandatory minimum number of experts for selection i.e. one in case of petitioner nos. 1 to 4, for the post of Lecturer, and 02 in case of petitioner (nos. 5 and 6 for the post of Readers and Professor), was present and thus the constitution and proceeding of the selection committee were valid. 17. In the present case there is no complaint made by any person regarding the non -availability of the vacancy; the category in which the vacancy falls; the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioner and the constitution of the selection committee. In the circumstances the vigilance enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Establishment under the orders of the State Government, as a fact finding enquiry into some complaints with which the selection of petitioner, has not been co -related, could not be a ground of recording disagreement. Learned counsel for the State states that the enquiry reports have been submitted and are under consideration of the State Government but nothing has been brought on record to show that there is any finding in the report, which relates to and may affect petitioner's selection. 18. The background of the case will demonstrate that the Chancellor of the University for the reasons, which are not recorded by him, did not have any faith in the Vice Chancellor to act fairly close to completing his term. He was passing repeated orders restraining the Vice Chancellor to hold and conclude selections, inspite of the directions of the High Court to allow him to conclude the proceedings. The High Court had to intervene on three occasions to allow the selection proceedings to be concluded. If there was any complaint of any irregularities which could have vitiated the selections, the same should have been brought on record by the Chancellor. The circumstances, in which the Executive Council met, under the orders of the Court, to consider the recommendation of the selection committees, would clearly show that the Chancellor did not have confidence on the previous Vice Chancellor. The reasons for not placing the trust on him have not been brought on record. The anxiety of the Vice Chancellor to fill up the teaching posts could not be, in the absence of any positive material, misunderstood and co -related with any corrupt motive. 19. Nothing has been brought on record, nor any material, which may have been found or discovered in three years, after the previous Vice Chancellor completed his term on 31.12.2007, has been brought on record to justify the apprehension of the Chancellor. So far as petitioners' appointments are concerned, there are no complaint, nor any doubt has been expressed on record to consider the selections to be invalid. 20. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23/28.12.2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in so far as petitioners' selections are concerned, are set aside. The Chancellor is requested to pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight weeks from the date a copy of the judgment is produced in his office.;