S. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THE dispute in this petition pertains to the selection of candidates for making appointments to the post of Lecturer in Botany in the University of Lucknow.
(2.) IN the daily newspaper 'Pioneer' an advertisement appeard on 1-6-80, annexure 1, through which applications were invited by the Registrar of the Lucknow University for making appointments to two permanent and two temporary posts of Lecturers in Botany. IN pursuance of this advertisement, apart from others the three petitioners and the opposite parties 6 and 7 submitted applications. It appears from the proceedings of the selection committee Ex. 3 that as many as 118 candidates applied for the posts in question. Call letters were issued to all 118 candidates but at the time of interview only 52, candidates appeared. The committee recommended Dr. (Miss) Gopa Misra opposite party no. 6 and Dr. Ram Rakshpal Singh opposite party no. 7 for being appointed against the two temporary posts. The committee did not find any candidate suitable for appointment against the two permanent posts. The committee therefore recommended that for making selections for the two permanent posts, the posts may be re-advertised. The recommendations of the selection committee came up before the Executive Council of the Lucknow University on 13-6-81. The Executive Council did not agree with the recommendations of the selection committee. It was of the opinion that the recommendations were contradictory inasmuch as the two candidates had been recommended for appointment against the temporary posts and although the qualifications in respect of temporary and permanent posts were the same, no candidate had been recommended for appointment against the permanent posts. The committee, therefore adopted the resolution that the matter may be referred to the Chancellor for decision under section 31 (b) (a) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1974 with the recommendation that the posts be re-advertised. The selection committee expressed its reasons in the resolution as follows :- " The Selection Committee's recommendations are contradictory. On the one hand they have recommended two candidates for appointment to temporary Lecturers and in the same breath they have mentioned that none of the candidates was fit enough for permanent Lecturer. The University rules do not provide any difference between the qualifications required for temporary and permanent Lecturer. Large number of candidates having much better academic records were not considered. " The Chancellor agreed with the view of the Executive Council that there was no reason for recommending the opposite parties 6 and 7 against temporary posts when the qualifications for temporary posts and permanent posts were identical. However, the Chancellor did not agree with the recommendation of the Council that the posts be re-advertised. The Chancellor found that opposite parties 6 and 7 had good academic record and therefore they could be appointed against the permanent posts. He accordingly directed that opposite parties 6 and 7 be appointed against the permanent posts on probation. IN respect of the two temporary posts the Chancellor provided that a fresh selection committee shall be called urgently to make selection from the candidates who had already applied and who had high qualifications. This order has been challenged by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under section 31 (8)(a) of U. P. State Universities Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) the Chancellor exercises only supervisory jurisdiction and in exercise of that supervisory jurisdiction the Chancellor could not convert the temporary appointment of opposite parties 6 and 7 into a permanent appointment. According to the learned counsel all that the Chancellor could do in the proceedings referred to him was to quash the recommendations of the selection committee and require the selection committee to interview all the candidates once again and send fresh recommendations. Another ground of challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Chancellor while directing appointment of opposite parties 6 and 7 against permanent posts omitted to take note of the Executive Council's observation that better candidates were available but were not considered by the selection committee. According to the learned counsel if the Chancellor had taken note of this observation, he would not have directed the appointment of opposite parties 6 and 7 against the permanent posts. The petitioners have tried to point out that they were more meritorious and better candidates than opposite parties 6 and 7.
(3.) THE writ petition has been contested only on behalf of Dr. (Miss) Gopa Misra and Dr. Ram Raksh Pal Singh. Neither the Chancellor nor the Lucknow University nor any of its officers have filed any counter affidavit to oppose the writ petition. Sri Umesh Chand who appeared for Dr. Gopa Misra and Dr. Ram Raksh Pal Singh submitted that under section 31 (8) of the Act the Chancellor has wide powers and the order actually passed by the Chancellor is not in excess of the jurisdiction conferred under the said provision. THE learned counsel further pointed out with reference to Annexure H-1 to the counter affidavit that the petitioners' claim of having better academic record than opposite parties 6 and 7 is not correct. Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act provides as follows :- " (8) (a). In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final. Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendations of the Selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of meeting of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be final. (b)............. From the above provision it would be seen that the Executive Council may either accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee or it may not accept the said recommendation. If the recommendation is accepted, nothing further is required to be done but if the Executive Council does not accept the recommendation, it cannot out-right reject the same. The only course open to it would be to refer the matter to the Chancellor. In the present case, since, the Executive Council did not agree with recommendations of the Selection Committee, it has no option but to refer the matter to the Chancellor. The statutory provision only says that the decision of the Chancellor shall be final. It does not place any restrictions on the powers of Chancellor in the matter of taking the decision. In the circumstances, the Chancellor may accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee in toto or he may accept it in part or he may accept it with modification. In the present case, the Chancellor accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee with modifications. The modifications adopted by the Chancellor are that opposite parties 6 and 7 instead of being appointed against temporary posts shall be appointed against permanent posts and so far as the temporary posts are concerned, the candidates shall be interviewed again by a fresh Selection Committee which will make its recommendations to the University. The Chancellor while passing the impugned order has given cogent reasons for the modification. For directing the appointment of opposite parties 6 and 7 against permanent posts the Chancellor has observed that there is no difference in the qualifications prescribed for making appointments against permanent posts and temporary posts and therefore once opposite parties 6 and 7 had been found to be meritorious, there was no occasion to restrict their appointment against temporary posts only. The Chancellor has also referred the merits of opposite parties 6 and 7. He found that apart from possessing the prescribed qualifications they had consistently good record. This observation of the Chancellor is correct as is apparent from annexure H-1 to the counter affidavit. In annexure H-1 opposite parties 6 and 7 have disclosed their merit and also the merit of the three petitioners. This document indicates that opposite party no. 6 Dr. Gopa Misra had right from High School to M. Sc. obtained first division. In the high school examination she had secured 72.3% marks while in the P.U.C. examination she had secured 73.8% marks. The percentage of marks in b. Sc. and M. Sc. was 69.1% and 65.6%. She had published one paper. Opposite party no. 7 Dr. Ram Raksh Pal Singh had secured first division in high school, Intermediate and B. Sc. examinations. Only in M. Sc. examination he had obtained 59% marks. He had published 11 papers. As against this record of opposite parties 6 and 7, the 6rst petitioner namely Dr. (Miss) Nirmala Nautiyal had secured first division only in B. Sc. and M. Sc. examinations. In High School and Intermediate examinations she had secured second class marks. The second petitioner Dr. (Miss) Usha Bajpai never secured first division. Same is the position of the third petitioner. Of course Dr. Tandon published 17 papers. The observation made by the Chancellor that opposite parties 6 and 7 had consistently good academic record does not therefore suffer from any factual error. The order of the Chancellor is based on relevant considerations and non of the considerations is irrelevant. In the circumstances, the said order cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.;