- (1.) The aforesaid issue has cropped up in relation to the facts and circumstances, which are enumerated hereunder: - Sampoornanand Sanskrit University (for short the University) issued an advertisement no.1-2004 dated 6.8.2004 inviting applications for 27 posts of lecturers including a post of lecturer in the Department of Sanskrit Vidya. It was provided therein that in order to be eligible to apply for the aforesaid post a candidate should possess a degree of Acharya or Post Graduate degree in the subject with specialization in Vyakaran. About 50 candidates applied against the aforesaid advertisement. The petitioner has to his credit a degree of Acharya in Vyakaran and has also cleared his National Eligibility Test (NET) held by University Grant Commission (UGC) and is also P.hD holder in Vyakaran. The petitioner also claims to have taught Vyakaran in the Department of University as a part time lecturer for one academic session. Interview took place on 12.1.2005 in which the petitioner along with others also appeared. The petitioner claims that even though Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda was not eligible, as she did not possess requisite qualification, as required in the advertisement, as she neither had a degree of Acharya nor a Post Graduate degree in Sanskrit with specialization in Vyakaran, yet she appeared before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee unanimously recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post in question at serial no.1 and also recommended Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda - respondent no.6 at serial no.2. The recommendation of the petitioner was unanimous, but in the case of Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda there was a note of dissent by the Head of Department, as he was of the view that her name should not be recommended, as she did not possess either the degree of Acharya in Vyakaran or a Post Graduate degree in the subject with specialization in Vyakaran and also that she was not able to answer question on Vyakaran. Accordingly, recommendations made by the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 23.1.2005 and the Executive Council passed a resolution appointing respondent no.6 on the post of lecturer, even though she was at serial no.2 and accordingly, an appointment order was issued in favour of respondent no.6 on 23.1.2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the appointment of Dr. Smt. Pramodini Panda - respondent no.6 as lecturer filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8003 of 2005 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Pandey v. State Of U.P. and others). In the said petition a stand was taken by the University that the Vice Chancellor/Chairman of the Selection Committee had given his marks in a sealed cover, which were disclosed for the first time before the Executive Council, and on that basis respondent no.6 was more suitable than the petitioner. Following findings were recorded in the judgment dated 16.12.2005, which are enumerated hereunder: (I)A Selection Committee takes a collective decision as a Body which cannot be affected subsequently by any act or an individual member of the Selection Committee. The decision of the Selection Committee placing the petitioner at serial number 1 was its final recommendation notwithstanding the fact that the Vice Chancellor initially without there being any provision reserved his right to disclose the marks awarded by him before the Executive Council. (II)The Executive Council was supposed to make appointment as per position or ranking obtained in the recommendation and it had no power to override the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and to appoint a candidate of its own choice. (III)The Vice Chancellor being Chairman of the Selection Committee was the master to control, manage and supervise the proceedings of the Selection Committee. He took active part in the selection process. There was absolutely no justification for the Vice Chancellor being the Chairman of the Selection Committee in adopting a novel method even after he had some difference of opinion with the Head of Department. The 2 experts were there, who took active part when merit list was drawn. Merit list which was prepared by Prof. K.C. Panda, one of the experts in the presence of all the committee members and had been certified by the Vice Chancellor under his signatures wherein the petitioner had been shown at serial number 1. It was part of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The reservation made by the Vice Chancellor could by no stretch of imagination be called as part of the recommendation by the Selection Committee. (IV)The Executive Council was, therefore, not authorized to take a different view than the view taken by the Selection Committee. In case it wanted to defer with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it should have referred the matter to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act. (V)The Vice Chancellor was not right in not disclosing the marks awarded by him before the Selection Committee in the meeting of the Selection Committee and could not do so subsequently after the meeting was over. The Executive Council also acted against law in not honoring the recommendation of the Selection Committee by changing the order of merit on the basis of a subsequent disclosure made by the Vice Chancellor. (VI)The Selection Committee including its Chairman becomes functus officio immediately on completion of the selection process. (VII)The argument made on behalf of the respondent no.6 that the court should be guided only by marks awarded by the two experts lacks merit. It runs counter to the statutory provisions, which contains the constitution of the Selection Committee, therefore, the said argument sans merits and is hereby rejected. (VIII)According to the stand taken by the University in the aforesaid case it was held by the Hon'ble Court that the petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 both possessed the minimum qualification. Accordingly, the Court observed that in case the Executive Council wanted to differ with the recommendations made by the selection committee then the only option before it was only to refer the matter to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act. Judgment dated 16.12.2005 was assailed by respondent no.6 before the Apex Court and the Apex Court also dismissed her SLP on 28.4.2006. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court and that of the Apex Court, the matter was again placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 29.6.2006 and the Executive Council resolved to differ with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and, therefore, referred the entire matter to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act for his decision. Accordingly, the Chancellor by means of an order dated 23.2.2007 has held that it is respondent no.6, who should be appointed as lecturer in Sanskrit Vidya. The petitioner, being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of Chancellor dated 23.2.2007, has filed present writ petition.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University wherein, inter alia, it is stated that respondent no.6 has better qualification than the petitioner and in this connection a comparative chart with educational qualifications and experience was also filed as annexure 3 to the counter affidavit to demonstrate that respondent no.6 is more suitable for the post in question than the petitioner. It was further stated that in the Selection Committee there were six members and out of them two members were experts of their subjects, two members represented Backward Caste and Scheduled Caste Community and other two being the Vice Chancellor and the Head of Department. The Selection Committee had decided to allot the marks on the performance of each candidate and the Vice Chancellor had given his marks in a sealed envelop and that when the recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Executive Council, where all the marks allotted by the members were counted and it was found that respondent no.6 got maximum marks and, therefore, she was recommended for appointment on 23.1.2005.
(3.) More or less, a similar counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.6 wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that as she was found at serial no.1 in the panel after including the marks of the Vice Chancellor, thus there was no illegality in the decision of the Executive Council and that after inclusion of marks given by the Vice Chancellor respondent no.6 has shifted to serial no.1 and, therefore, it is incorrect to allege on behalf of the petitioner that he was at serial no.1.;