B.D. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was Reader in Political Science in the University of Gorakhpur. Vacancy arose for the post of an additional Professor in Political Science. The Petitioner was also a candidate. The Selection Committee consisted of the Vice -Chancellor (Chairman), the Head of the Department and three experts nominated by the Chancellor. The Committee met on November 13, 1978. One of the three experts was not present. Out of the three candidates called for interview the Petitioner alone appeared. The Vice -Chancellor and one of the experts, Sri. M.D. Misra recorded: It is recommended that Dr. Krishna Nand be appointed Professor in Political Science. In view of his good research work the condition of consistently good academic record is relaxed. The Head of Department (Prof. Raghuveer Singh) and the other expert present, namely G.N. Sharma, recorded: The post be readvertised because Dr. Krishna Nand does not satisfy the prescribed qualifications and relaxation is not justified. The Executive Council at its meeting held on March 7, 1979 accepted the "recommendation' of the Selection Committee and decided to appoint the Petitioner as professor for Political Science. The Petitioner took up the assignment on the same day. The Head of the Department made a representation to the Chancellor on April 16, 1979 saying that the Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification and that there was no recommendation as such made by the Selection Committee for his appointment. In their comments before the Chancellor the University as well as the Petitioner raised objection, inter alia, with regard to the locus standi of the Head of the Department to make representation contending that he is not a person aggrieved. The Chancellor observed that this was a fit case in which the matter may be decided under the second proviso to Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. Upon merit, the Chancellor was of the view that the Selection Committee had not made any recommendation unanimously or by majority and that there was no finding recorded as appearing from the notes of the Vice Chancellor and the expert that the Petitioner had to his credit published work of a very high standard so as to deserve relaxation. It was observed: Under Section 31(1) it is clearly provided that a teacher of the university shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection committee as in this case, the Executive Council cannot, in my view, take any decision in regard to the appointment of a teacher. In absence of any specific rule to the contrary, the normal rule applicable to bodies should prevail, namely, that the decision must be either unanimous or by majority. Here the members were evenly divided and the differences were of a fundamental nature, and go to the root of the recommendation. In my view, the view of the two members cannot be regarded as a decision of the Selection Committee as a whole. The fact that one of the experts had agreed to the selection of Dr. Krishnanand would not make it a recommendation of the Selection Committee by virtue of Section 31(6). The Executive Council or the Chancellor cannot be left to pick and choose arbitrarily one of the two views of the Selection Committee as its recommendation. It is obvious that the selection committee failed to make any valid recommendation.
(2.) THE appointment of the Petitioner as Professor in Political Science was quashed as a result and the selection directed by the Chancellor to be made afresh in accordance with law. Aggrieved against this order of the Chancellor dated July 26, 1979 the Petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sri. Raja Ram Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, made two fold submissions before us: 1. The Vice -Chancellor in his capacity as Chairman of the Selection Committee be deemed to have exercised casting vote and hence the Selection Committee be taken to have made recommendation for appointment in Petitioner's favour; 2. The Chancellor could not act suo moto to dispose of the representation without notice to this effect being given to the Petitioner.
(3.) BEFORE adverting to these contentions, it is proper to refer in brief to the relevant provisions. The Selection Committee for the appointment of teachers is one of the authorities of the University (Section 19 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973). Section 31(1) provides that the teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. The constitution of the Selection Committee for the appointment of a teacher of the University is laid in Sub -section (4)(a). It consists of the Vice -Chancellor who shall be the Chairman thereof; the Head of the Department concerned and in the case of the Professor, as in the present case, three experts nominated by the Chancellor. A recommendation by a Selection Committee is not to be considered valid unless one of the experts has agreed to such selection Sub -section (6). Sub -section (7) prescribes that the majority of the total membership of any Selection Committee shall form the quorum of such Committee. If the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee with respect to the appointment of a teacher of the University, the Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final, (Sub -Section 8).;