N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) AN order passed by the Vice Chancellor of Meerut University directing the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as a Lecturer in Commerce Department of institution is under challenge in this petition.
(2.) DESPITE time being granted to counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 Vice Chancellor of the University Even the managing committee of the Institution, Respondent No. 2 has not filed any counter affidavit. Only Respondent No. 2, the person appointed by the Vice Chancellor as a lecturer in commerce department by the impugned order, has filed his counter affidavit Learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length including Sri A. KYog who represented the Vice -Chancellor.
(3.) CERTAIN posts in the Commerce Department of the institution having become vacant it was duly notified to the Higher Education Service Commission No recommendation having been received from the Commission for a period of three months the Respondent No. 2 took proceedings for appointing a teacher purely on ad hoc basis Accordingly, the post was advertised on 7 -12 -1990 and several persons applied for the aforesaid posts Initially 16 -1 -1991 was fixed for interview but for some reasons the date was postponed to 6 -2 -91. The selection committee, according to the impugned order, consisted of(l) the President of the managing committee, (2) Principal of the College, (3) expert nominated by the Vice -Chancellor and (4) the Principal's nominee. The aforesaid selection committee recommended the name of Respondent no 3 at serial No. 1 while the name of the Petitioner was recommended at Serial No. 2. It may be mentioned here that admittedly only three persons had appeared before the selection committee for interview while five other candidates had given representations to the committee giving reasons why they were avoiding to appear before the selection committee. The recommendation of the selection committee was put up before the executive committee of the College on 16 -2 -1991 and after considering t>e representation made by five candidates who had boycotted the selection committee, the executive committee decided not to accept the recommendation made by the selection committee. The selection committee did not send its reasons to the Vice Chancellor for not accepting the recommendation of the selection committee. It appears that the candidates who had been recommended for the post in question and some other posts made representation to the Vice Chancellor in this regard and accordingly, the managing committee was asked to forward necessary documents to the Vice Chancellor. After considering the representation the Vice Chancellor passed the impugned order whereby he disagreed with the executive committee and accepted the recommendation made by the selection committee. He, accordingly, directed the managing committee to appoint Respondent No. 3 as a lecturer in Commerce till a regular appointment we made by the Higher Education Commission. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition.;