M.Katju, Prakash Krishna - (1.) -The petitioner, who was duly selected as Lecturer in Botany and was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel, has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent University to issue an appointment letter in his favour appointing him as Lecturer of Botany in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur.
(2.) THE controversy is very short. A post of Lecturer in Botany was advertised by the University vide Advertisement No. 3/2001. It was published in the newspaper Hindi Daily 'Dainik Jagaran' on 10.4.2001. THE petitioner, in response to the said advertisement, applied and was interviewed. He was held successful by the Selection Committee which met on 17.11.2001. THE Selection Committee prepared a panel of successful candidates of three persons. One Dr. Mohan Prasad Singh was placed at Sl. No. 1 and the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel. Dr. Mohan Prasad Singh was issued an appointment letter and he joined the University on 13.12.2001 and tendered his resignation on 20th December, 2001, w.e.f. 14.12.2001. On these facts, the petitioner claims that he being at Sl. No. 2 should be issued appointment letter on the vacancy thus caused by the resignation of Dr. Mohan Prasad Singh. We have heard Sri G. K. Singh counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Gupta for the University. In spite of time being granted to the University, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Kishori Rawan Shiksha Samiti v. Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1320. In that case, it was held that if a candidate comes and merely puts his signature at the close of the working in token of his having joined the post and does not turn up thereafter to perform his duty, it cannot be said that the panel has exhausted and whole process of selection has to be gone into all over again de novo. The aforesaid judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Dr. Mohan Prasad Singh having given his joining report on 13.12.2001, tendered his resignation with effect from the very next day. Sri Dilip Gupta, counsel for the University submitted that in view of Section 31 (1) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, a teacher of an University shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Section 31 (7A) provides that it shall be open to the Selection Committee to recommend one or more names not exceeding 3 for each post. Statute 11.6 (a) of the First Statutes of the Gorakhpur University reads as follows : "If the Selection Committee recommends more than one candidate for appointment, it may in its discretion arrange their names in order of preference. Where the Committee decides to arrange the names in order of preference, it shall be deemed to have signified that in the event of the first being not available, the second may be appointed, and in the event of the second also being not available third may be appointed, and so on." According to him as soon as a person recommended by the Selection Committee to the post for which selection was made joins, the panel is exhausted and that is the reason why no time limit has been provided by the U. P. State Universities Act or by the first Statutes. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Dr. Chandradeo Pandey v. Chancellor, Allahabad University and others, 1989 (1) AWC 704 : (1989) 1 UPLBEC 727. We have carefully considered the said judgment. In our view, the said judgment is distinguishable. In the aforesaid judgment, the High Court was considering the claim of regularisation of teachers of the University under Section 31 (3) (b) of the aforesaid Act. The Court was not called upon to decide the controversy in hand although it was observed that once the selected candidate joins, the panel exhausts. The said observation should be read in the context of the facts of that case. The Court was not considering the effect of a person who immediately or very shortly after joining tenders his resignation. The joining should be an effective joining. A candidate who gives the joining report merely for the sake of joining and resigns shortly thereafter without discharging any substantial function is no joining in the eyes of law.
(3.) THE selection of a Lecturer is a cumbersome process and requires advertisement, interview by the Selection Committee (in which experts have to be called from different Universities) recommendation by it and acceptance of the recom-mendation of the Selection Committee by the Executive Council. THEir is no rule which provides life of a panel. THE idea of framing a panel is that in case the man at Sl. No. 1 fails to join, the candidate next to him shall be issued the appointment letter, with a view to avoid the whole exercise of selection de novo. We do not think that the intention of the Act or the Rules is otherwise. In the instant case, the petitioner was recommended by the Selection Committee and was approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 13.12.2001 vide item No. 86. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent University to issue an appointment order/letter appointing the petitioner as Lecturer in Botany in Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, without any further delay.;