R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) BY an advertisement published on 12/15 -5 -1981, applications were invited for three posts of lecturers in Sri Nath Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the college) which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (here in after referred to as the University). Petitioners and others applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and were selected by a Selection Committee in pursuance where of they were appointed as lecturers and joined their duties in the college on 10 -7 -1981. The Vice -Chancellor of the University by his order dated 18 -11 -1981 approved the appointments of the petitioners. However, the order of approval does not appear to have been communicated to the college authorities. The Vice -Chancellor, by another order dated 8 -3 -1983 approved the appointments of respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11, but subsequently by order dated 14 -9 -1983 the Vice -Chancellor cancelled his order dated 8 -3 -1983 approving the appointment orders of respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 and granted the approval again to the petitioners This order of 14 -6 -1983 was again reviewed by the Vice -Chancellor and thereby restored his earlier order dated 8 -3 -1983, by his order dated 22 -8 -1983, with the result the appointments of respondents 9, 10 and 11 were approved and appointments of the petitioners stand rejected. Petitioners accordingly filed representation under Section 68 of the State Universities Act before the Chancellor which has been dismissed by order dated 9 -3 -1984. It is against these orders of the Vice -Chancellor and Chancellor that the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Grievance of the petitioners is that both the Vice -Chancellor and the Chancellor have passed the impugned orders in violation of the principles of natural justice and the findings recorded by them are not only perverse but contrary to the material on record. Counter -affidavits have been filed on behalf of the management of the college and the Chancellor. No counter -affidavit, however, appears to have been filed on behalf of the Vice -Chancellor.
(2.) CHANCELLOR by the impugned order has held that one Sri Tarkeshwar Pandey, who was head of the management, on the basis of false and fabricated papers, took action for removal of respondents 9, 10 and 11 from service and in their place appointed the petitioners, which was not justified. The Chancellor further held that there was no vacancy and the selection of the petitioners was made by suppression of relevant facts and the petitioners' appointments were void ab initio. It appears that the Chancellor called for the comments from the University against the representation of the petitioners. The University accordingly submitted its comments along with the record. From the perusal of the order of the Chancellor, it is clear that it is based solely on the comments and the record sent by the University. However, the petitioners were neither given the copies of the comments nor were shown the record, relied upon by the Chancellor. In paragraph 29 of the writ petition, it has been categorically stated by the petitioners that they were neither informed about the comments and record sent by the University nor were they shown the record and comments. It is further averred that they were also not given the copies of the comments and the record. In paragraph 5 of the counter -affidavit of Sri Navin Chandra, filed on behalf of the Chancellor, which contains the reply of paragraph 29 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no provision for giving copy of the comments and opportunity of hearing by the Chancellor and it is not incumbent on the Chancellor to intimate the material to the parties concerned.
(3.) IT is one of the fundamental principles of the natural justice that a case cannot be decided on the basis of material collected behind the back of the parties. It is not open to base the decision on the comments and the record of the University without disclosing the same to the petitioners. In the case of Brajlal Manilal & Co. v. Union of India, : AIR 1964 SC 1643 Supreme Court set aside the order of the Central Government, which was based on the comments/report of the State Government regarding which the appellant therein had no opportunity to make the representation. The relevant extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: It does follow, therefore, that they could not act on the basis of material as regards which the appellants had no opportunity to make their representations.... If the report of the State Government made any points against the representations made by the appellants and these were being taken into consideration by the Union Government, in common fairness, the appellants were entitled to be informed as to what these were and no opportunity to point out how far they militated against the contentions raised by them. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the orders of the Central Government now under appeal is vitiated as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, in that the decision was rendered without affording to the appellants a reasonable -opportunity of being heard which is a sine qua non of a fair hearing.;