A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) The Chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, received certain complaints against the then Vice-Chancellor of the said University containing allegations relating to irregularities which were stated to have been committed in matters of appointment of certain teachers. It was alleged in those complaints that some of the teachers including the petitioner did not possess even the requisite mandatory minimum qualifications and that the appointments have been made on extraneous considerations. The Chancellor caused a preliminary examination of those cases to be made. He obtained from the University details of the qualifications possessed by those teachers and the subjects to teach which they had been appointed. The preliminary examination disclosed, according to the Chancellor that some of the teachers including the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the applicable Statutes. The Chancellor therefore, decided to initiate action suo motu under Section 68, U.P. State Universities Act. A show cause notice was thereupon served on the petitioner, a true copy whereof is annexure-6 to the writ petition. In this notice, it was pointed out to the petitioner that the degree of Acharya which he held was in Shanker Vedant and Vyakaran and not the subject concerned namely Madh Vedant. It was further pointed out that under the relevant Statute of the University it was mandatory that the candidate must possess a Master's degree in the subject concerned itself. The petitioner, thereupon, submitted two replies dated respectively 1-12-1980 and 16-3-1981. The burden of these replies was that the Master's degree possessed by the petitioner was in substance equivalent to the Master's degree in Madh Vedant. It was submitted that Madh, Ramanand, Ramanuj and Shanker etc. are the various branches of Vedant. Shanker Vedant and Madh Vedant are inter-related subjects supplementing each other. So the degree of Acharya in Shanker Vedant possessed by the petitioner ought to be treated as equivalent to the Master's degree in Madh Vedant.
(2.) On receipt of the replies and the comments of the Vice-Chancellor, which had also been invited, the Chancellor, in order to determine the controversy raised by the petitioner, constituted a panel of experts consisting of two Professors. The experts gave independent opinions. Both of them were unanimous in their views that the Master's degree possessed by the petitioner could not be regarded as equivalent to the Master's degree in Madh Vedant. Thereupon, the Chancellor passed the impugned order. He held that it was obvious that the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum qualification of a Master's degree in the subject concerned namely Madh Vedant, which being mandatory under the applicable Statutes, the appointment of the petitioner was clearly liable to be quashed by the impugned order. The Chancellor quashed the selection and appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer in Madh Vedant and directed that the post be readvertised. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) Broadly, two points were raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition. 1. Assuming that the petitioner did not possess a Master's degree in the subject concerned, in view of the provision in the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to obtain the requisite qualifications within a period of five years, the appointment of the petitioner must be deemed to have been made in the exercise of powers contemplated under Cl. (3) of Statute 11.01. The Chancellor has, therefore, committed a patent error in holding that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the Statute. 2. The impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice in that the opinion of the experts was a material which was used by the Chancellor without making the same available to the petitioner.;