Saiyed Haider Abbas Raza and Surya Prasad, JJ. - (1.) THE fate of these aforesaid writ petitions hinges on the reply to two questions. Firstly as to whether the Vice -Chancellor would exercise two votes, one for a member of the Executive Council and the other as a Chairman of the meeting in the matter of resolution pertaining to the selection of two professors of the English Department of Allahabad University, which was recommended by the Executive Council. Secondly that as to whether Professor Dr. Raj Nath was entitled to submit his comments or reply before the Chancellor against the representations preferred by Dr. Alok Rai and Dr. R.K. Srivastava against the alleged decision of the Executive Council accepting the recommendations of the selection committee, and the denial of the opportunity to submit his comments or reply, will vitiate the order passed by the Chancellor. It is a settled position that if the regulation do not provide any provision for the Chairman to vote on a substantive motion, in the meeting of any company, association or the club, he cannot exercise his vote in the capacity of a member as well as the casting vote being the Chairman of the meeting. To that respect the order of the Chancellor does not suffer from any infirmity.
(2.) HAVING considered this aspect of the matter as well as the conduct of the Chairman, namely the Vice -Chancellor the Chancellor allowed the representations preferred by Dr. Alok Rai and Dr. R.K. Srivastava with the following order: - - The Executive Council is directed to make a reference to the Chancellor for his final decision under Section 31(8)(a) of U.P. State University Act, 1973 stating the reasons of disagreement with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee within one month. This reference shall be made in pursuance of the resolution moved by Sri Krishna Chandra and deemed to have been passed by the Executive Council in the eye of the law. It is further hereby made clear that the earlier impugned resolution passed by the Executive Council regarding the appointments on the post of professors in English is null and void and consequently set aside. Further appropriate action may be taken accordingly. Probably this direction was issued by the Chancellor as he was of the view, that the motion for approving the recommendations of the Selection Committee was defeated for the reason that the Vice -Chancellor, being the Chairman could not have exercised two votes, one in the capacity of the member of the Executive Council and the second as the Chairman of the Meeting. Hence he directed the Executive Council to make a reference to the Chancellor for his decision under Section 31(8)(a) of the State University Act, 1973. This was done particularly for the reason that under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State University Act, 1973, the Executive Council of the State University is not vested with a power to reject the recommendations of the Selection Committee. If the Executive Council disagreed with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it had no option except to refer the matter to the Chancellor stating, inter -alia, the reasons for making such disagreement, the Chancellor felt that the motion was not carried out, the only logical conclusion which he had drawn was that the recommendations were disapproved, so that the matter ought to have been referred to the Chancellor.
(3.) TO that respect the order of the Chancellor does not suffer from any infirmity, but we have to examine the circumstances, which prevailed at the time when the matter came up before the Executive Council. As soon as the attention of the Executive Council was drawn by a member that Professor Dr. K.K. Sharma, in whose favour the Selection Committee gave recommendations, was guilty of plagiarism passion and emotions and members were swayed with it. From the minutes of the Executive Council as well as the counter affidavit which has been filed by Naveen Chandra on behalf of the Chancellor, indicates that there was not an iota of evidence against the appointment of Professor Dr. Raj Nath, the entire emphasis was against the selection of Professor Dr. K.K. Sharma. At this situation we are not concerned as to whether the allegations against Professor Dr. K.K. Sharma which were raised in the meeting of the Executive Council had any basis or not or whether the allegations against him were correct or not because we have not been called upon to decide this question. We only confine ourselves as to whether the order passed by the Chancellor was correct or not in allowing two representations which were before him. The Executive Council did not even go through the merits or demerits of the selection of Professor Dr. Raj Nath. From the minutes of the meeting it transpires that none raised any objection against the selection of Professor Dr. Raj Nath.;