Kamal Narain Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is employed as Reader and Head of Shalya Shalakya Department in Ayurvedic College, Sanskrit University, Varanasi. In September, 1974, the post of Reader in the Shalya Shalakya in the college of Medical Sciences of the Banaras Hindu University was advertised. The petitioner applied for the same. On July 22, 1975, the petitioner and a number of other candidates including Dr. G.C. Prasad (Respondent No. 4) were interviewed by a selection committee, which recommended the name of Dr. G.C. Prasad (Respondent no, 4) for appointment to the said post. The Executive Council of the University at its meeting held on 13.12.1975 accepted the recommendation and appointed the respondent No. 4 on the post of Reader. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the resolution of Executive Council dated 13.12.1975 approving the appointment of Dr. G.C. Prasad (Respondent No. 4). Learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions before us: (I) The procedure followed by the selection committee in making recommendation to the Executive Council was illegal, as the selection committee recommended only one name instead of two or three names as required by the relevant statute and the Ordinances; (II) Dr. K.N. Udupa, Director, Institute of Medical Sciences, who was a member of the selection committee, was biased towards respondent No. 4. Before we deal with these submissions we consider it necessary to refer to the relevant provisions the Acts, Statutes and Ordinances which regulate the services of a teacher in the University.
(2.) THE Executive Council constituted under the Banaras Hindu University Act is an authority of the University under Section 8A of the Act. Section 10(2) provides that the Executive Council shall exercise such powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred OF imposed on it by the Statutes or the Ordinances. Section 17 provides for framing of statutes providing for the qualifications and appointments of teachers in the University. Statute 15 framed under the Act confers power on the Executive Council to appoint professors, Readers and lecturers on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted for the purpose. Statute 27 lays down that there shall be selection committees for making recommendations to the Executive Council for appointment to the posts of professors, readers, lecturers and other officers. It shall among others include Vice Chancellor who shall be the Chairman thereof and a nominee of the Visitor. Executive Council has framed Ordinances regulating the procedure to be followed by the selection committee in making selection. Clause (4) of the Ordinance, as amended by the Executive Council, on 3.9.68 is as under) - - The selection committee shall recommend as far as possible two or three names more than the number of posts in order to merit for consideration of the Executive Council. Even though clause 4 of the Ordinance required the selection committee to recommend two or three names to the Executive Council, it recommended only one name of respondent No. 4. The petitioner's grievance is that the selection committee acted illegally in sending only one name. If it had acted in accordance with the mandatory provisions of clause (4) of the Ordinance, it would have sent two or three names to the Executive Council and in that event petitioner's name would have been recommended. The failure of the selection committee to recommend two or three names vitiated its recommendation which rendered the appointment of respondent No. 4 invalid.
(3.) THE basic function of the selection committee is to assess the merit of each candidate and to recommend the best possible candidate who may be most suitable for appointment to the post for which selection is made. Under clause (4) of the Ordinance, selection committee was required to recommend two or three names more than the number of posts in order of merit for consideration of the Executive Council. Since the selection was being made for only one post, the selection committee, according to the Ordinance, was required to send two or three names for consideration of the Executive Council. The expression "as as far as possible" does not bind the selection committee to send the names of two or three persons. It merely requires the selection committee to make an effort to send the names of two or three persons, if it is so possible. The expression "as far as possible" has been used in wide sense which vests selection committee with power to send two or three names and if it is not so possible it may send only one name. The Ordinance does not bind the selection committee to send two or three names in each and every case irrespective of the merit of the candidates. If the selection committee does not find two or three persons suitable for appointment to the post, in that event, it may make recommendation in favour of only one candidate which, in its opinion, may be found most suitable for appointment. The selection committee is not required to record any reasons for not sending the names of two or three candidates. In the absence of any statutory provisions the selection committee was not required to record reasons and its absence do not vitiate recommendation.;