- (1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. All the aforemen tioned writ petitions relate to the same con troversy involving similar question of facts and law regarding reservation for the post of Professors, hence these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE facts, in short, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions, are that one post of Professor in Political Science, one post of Professor in the department of Sanskrit, one post of Professor in Medieval and Modern History, one post of Professor in the depart ment of Applied Economics fell vacant be tween June 1989 to September, 1993. For filling up all these posts Lucknow Univer sity issued an advertisement No. 5/1993, copy of which is contained in Annexure-1, giving the number of posts required in dif ferent departments. In pursuance of this advertisement applications were invited from the eligible candidates. Last date for submission of application Forms was 20th October, 1993. Interview letters for these posts were issued sometimes in March 1994 and the interview of the candidates took place between 4. 4. 94 to 22. 4. 94 by the Selec tion Committee. The Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor for placing the same before the Executive Council, who had to approve these selections and there after appointment letters are issued. But before these proceedings could be placed before the Executive Council of the Univer sity, an Ordinance No. 5/94 was issued on 11. 2. 94 by the State Government for reser vation of the posts in the cadre of Profes sors, Readers and Lecturers. Thereafter this Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 4 of 1994, which notified on 23. 4. 94 and was given retrospective effect from 11th Decem ber, 1993. This Act is known as U. P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Clas ses) Act 1994, (here in after called the Act ). When this Ordinance was promul gated, the University keeping in view the provisions of the reservation made, issued fresh advertisement in 1995 inviting ap plications for the post of Professors and Lecturers. Before this advertisement was issued by the University and after promulga tion of Ordinance No. 5/94, the present writ petitions were filed. In some of "the writ petitions, by means of interim direction, it was provided that the proceedings of Selection Commit tee shall be placed by the Vice-Chancellor before the Executive Council, who shall take decision on the report of the Selection Committee, but shall not issue appointment letters. This interim order was not passed in one of the writ petitions, viz. W. P. No. 783 (SB) of 1994. After the issuance of this interim order the Executive Council approved the selection made by the Selec tion Committee but refrained from issuing any appointment letter in terms of the Court order. As there was no direction to consider the decision of the Selection Com mittee in W. P. No. 783 (SB) of 1994, there fore, proceedings of Selection Committee was not placed before the Executive Coun cil, which still remains at that stage.
(3.) IN the writ petitions it is alleged that the Selection Committee was duly con stituted in accordance with the provisions of U. P. State Universites Act, 1973 and after coming into force Act No. 4 of 1994, the provisions of Ordinance No. 5 of 94 will not have any effect on the constitution of Selec tion Committee in view of Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act. It has been al leged that the panel of Experts is to be drawn by the Chancellor and the nomina tion of that Expert should be indicated in the panel. The panel was constituted by the Chancellor after coming into force the Act No. 4 of 1994, hence the Chancellor is now bound by his act and he cannot cancel the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The provisions of Act No. 4 of 94 are not attracted in the present case in view of the judgment in INdra Sawhney v. Union of INdia, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217. It is further alleged that the selection process had already started before coming into force of Act No. 4 of 1994, hence fresh advertisement cannot be issued after amending the earlier advertisement. The roster has also been notified by the Gover nor on 29th March, 1994 under the provisions of Section 3 (5) of Act No. 4/94. In the Selection Committee by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 7 of the Act, nomination is to be given from Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Clas ses, so that the representation of these clas ses is duly made. Under the powers con ferred under Section 7 of the Act the State Government has delegated powers of nominating the member of those classes to the Chairman of the Selection Committee, (copy of that G. O. is Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act cannot be amended by the G. O. and the nomination in the Selection Committee is to be done under the provisions of the Act by the Vice-Chancel-lor. It is further alleged that under Section 15 (1) of the Act, it is provided that the provisions of this Act shall not apply in the case where selection process has been in itiated before commencement of the Act. In the Explanation to Section 15 of the Act it is mentioned that the selection process shall be deemed to have been initiated from the date of starting written examination or in terview, as the case may be.;