- (1.) WE have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed setting aside the order dated 23/28th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi in so far as the Chancellor has accepted the reference of disagreement of the Executive Council of the University under Section 31 (8) (a) of the U.P. State University Act, (in short, the Act), to the recommendations of the selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee, for the post of Reader in Psychology (unreserved). The University issued an advertisement No. 2 of 2006 for appointment on a large number of posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors by direct recruitment, followed by advertisement No. 6 of 2006 to the same effect. The petitioner applied and was called to appear for interview before the selection committee on 18.12.2007. The Executive Council in its meeting held on 23.6.2010 considered the recommendations of the selection committees. With regard to the petitioner's selection as Reader in Psychology the Executive Council found that a vigilance enquiry initiated by the State Government is pending on the appointments made during the tenure of Shri S.S. Kushwaha, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor, and that in the vigilance enquiry the information has been sought with regard to the appointment on the post of Reader in Psychology also. The Executive Council found that there is possibility of delay in conclusion of the vigilance enquiry and thus taking into account the difficulties, which are faced by the students, a decision was taken to refer the matter to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act and to take steps only after the decision was taken by him.
(3.) THE Chancellor in his impugned order dated 23/28th December, 2010 has found that so far as the selection on the post of Reader Psychology, (unreserved) on which Shri Rajendra Singh has been recommended at serial No. 1 and Shri Arun Kumar Jaiswal at serial No. 2 in the waiting list and if none of them joins, Dr. Shafali Varma Thakral and Dr. Madan Gopal Varma in the waiting list; the subject specialists were present in requisite number, but that since a vigilance enquiry has been instituted in respect of all the appointments made by the then Vice-Chancellor, which is likely to take some time, in the interest of the students, the matter has been referred to him. The Chancellor has observed that since the persons, who have been recommended for appointment, have not been issued any appointment letter, nor the Executive Council has accepted the recommendations of the selection committee, the persons recommended for the selections have not acquired any vested rights and thus on the decision taken by the Executive Council, the recommendations of the selection committee are cancelled. Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no complaint with regard to non-availability of the vacancies, the category in which the vacancy falls, the qualification and eligibility of the petitioner and the constitution of the selection committee. The vigilance enquiry conducted by the vigilance establishment is only a fact finding enquiry in which some complaints were required to be verified, and with which the petitioner's selection has no concern. The Executive Council did not disagree with the recommendations of the selection committee, nor there is any error of procedure in the selections. It only observed that since the vigilance enquiry is pending, in which some information has been sought with regard to the post of Reader (Psychology) also, and there is possibility of delay in conclusion of the vigilance enquiry the matter be referred to the Chancellor. The Chancellor has illegally and arbitrarily considered the observations of the Executive Council as the reasons for disagreement and after recording that the petitioner has not acquired any right for appointment, cancelled the recommendations. He submits that the entire procedure adopted so far as petitioner is concerned, is grossly arbitrarily, unfair and unreasonable. The Chancellor had not made any comments nor has found the recommendation of the selection committee to be illegal on any point. He has simply rejected the recommendation on the ground that the vigilance enquiry may take some time to be concluded.;