S. P. Srivastava. J. - (1.) SRI Sarswati Vidyalaya Post Graduate College, Hapur is affiliated to Meerut University, Meerut. A substantive vacancy occurred in the post of Lecturer in the subject of Commerce in that institution, which was duly notified to the U. P. Higher Education Services commission. No. recommendation having been received from the Commission for a period of more than three months, the Committee of Management Initiated proceedings to appoint 'teacher' as against the said vacancy on ad hoc basis for which advertisement Inviting applications was published on 7-12-1990. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of holding this selection included an expert nominee of the Vice Chancellor of the University concerned. In the select list prepared by the selection committee, the appellant was placed at serial no. 1. while the respondent No. 3 was pleced at serial no. 2. The Committee of Management however, decided cot to accept the recommendation of the selection committee, vide its resolution dated 16-2-1991 and on a representations, the Vice Chancellor disagreed with the decision of the Committee of Management and passed an order dated 20th March, 1991, directing the committee of Management to appoint the appellant, selectee, who had been placed at serial No 1, against the vacancy in question in accordance with the provisions contained in section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act.
(2.) THE respondent no. 3 who had been put at serial no. 2 in the select list challenged the aforesaid order passed by the Vice Chancellor by means of a writ petition which has given rise to the present appeal. This writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this court and the order passed by the Vice Chancellor was quashed holding that the right of management to make an ad-hoc appointment under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act was not curtailed in any manner by the provisions contained under section 31 of the State Universities Act and the procedure prescribed under she aforesaid provisions did not come in the picture at all while making an appointment envisaged under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act. THE learned Single Judge concluded that where the management refuses to accept the recommendation of the selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor can not Impose his own will in the matter. THE learned Single Judge found ample support for his view from the decision of this court in the case of Madhuri Chauhas v. District inspector of Schools, 1V80 UP LB EC 397, snd In the case of Anil Kumar v. Vice Chancellor, 1990 (2) CP LB EC 1228. Feeling aggrieved, the selectee, whose came had been put at serial no. 1 in the select list referred to hereinbefore, has now come up in appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge seeking its reversal. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that an ad-hoc appointment contemplated under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, not being an appointment which requires to be made on, the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, has to be treated as covered by the provisions contained under section 31 of the State Universities Act and consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the disagreement of the committee of Management with the recommendation of the selection committee, a reference to the Vice Chancellor lay and whose decision in the matter had to be treated as final as envisaged under section 31 (8) (b) of the Slate Universities Act. The learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon the said provision in his attempt to justify the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor as being well within jurisdiction.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has asserted 'that the clear provisions contained in the Difficulties Removal Order issued in accordance with Section 31-A of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act read together with section 30 of the said Act led to an urescapable conclusion that the previsions contained in section 31 of the State Universities Act have no application at all to the facts and circumstances of the present case and consequently the decision of the learned Single Judge did not suffer from any such legal Infirmity, which may call for an interference In this appeal. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the relevant provisions of both the Acts, referred to above.;