Kamal Narain Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks relief for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the resolution of the Executive Council of the Banaras Hindu University dated 23/24 Feb., 1985 directing the Selection Committee to hold fresh selection for the post of Lecturers in the Faculty of Management Studies. The Banaras Hindu University issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lecturers in the Faculty of Management Studies. The petitioner as well as many others applied for the same. The Selection Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 and the Statutes framed thereunder interviewed candidates on 30th January, 1985 and it made its recommendations to the Executive Council for making appointments. Before the recommendations of the Selection Committee could be considered by the Executive Council, Dr. Deepak Sharma who had applied for the post of Lecturer but who had not been called for interview, made a representation to the Executive Council against the recommendations of the Selection Committee on the ground that he was eligible for appointment to the post but the Selection Committee wrongly refused to call him for interview. The Executive Council considered the representation of Dr. Deepak Sharma at its meeting held on 23/24 Feb. 1985, it found merit in the representation of Dr. Deepak Sharma as in its opinion, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for being considered for appointment to the post of Lecturer. It's therefore, resolved that interview for the post of Lecturers be held afresh. In this view the Executive Council did not make appointment instead it directed the Selection Committee to hold fresh interview and selection. In pursuance to the resolution of the Executive Council, the Selection Committee issued fresh interview letter directing the petitioner to appear for interview again on 27.3.1985 at 8.30 A.M. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the resolution of the Executive Council as well as the consequential order issued by the Selection Committee by its letter dated 16.3.1985.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged by the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of this petition finally at the admission stage. Selection and appointment of teachers in the Banaras Hindu University is regulated by provisions of the Banaras Hindu University Act (Act No. XVI of 1915) and Statutes framed thereunder. Section 10(2) of the Banaras Hindu University Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Executive Council shall exercise such powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on it by the Statutes or the Ordinances. Statute 15 framed under Act, confers power on the Executive Council to appoint Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other members of the teaching staff on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. Statute 27(1)(a) lays down that there will be a Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Executive Council for appointment to the posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Registrar, Finance Officer, Controller of Examinations and Librarian. Clause (3) of Statute 27 lays -down that if the Executive Council is unable to accept any recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for orders. Section 5 of the Act confers overall powers on the Visitor, the President of India, to annul any proceeding of the University which may not be in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Statutes or the Ordinances.
(3.) THE Scheme of the Act and the Statutes indicates that Selection for appointment to the post of Lecturers is made by Selection Committee constituted under the Statutes. The appointment to the Lecturers' post shall be made by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. If the Executive Council, for any person, does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it may refer the matter to the Visitor after recording its reason incorporating the grounds for its disagreement with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Visitor may thereupon accept the recommendation made by the Executive Council and issue direction in accordance with those decisions or the Visitor may not agree with the recommendation made by the Executive Council and in that event, he may issue direction to the Executive Council for making appointment in accordance with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The Act and the Statutes do not vest any power in the Executive Council to ignore or by -pass the recommendation made by the Selection Committee or to direct it to hold fresh interview or selection. The Executive Council is constituted by the Act and Statutes framed thereunder, it derives its powers from the Act and Statutes. It cannot exercise jurisdiction, which it does not possess under the provisions of the Act and Statutes. Statute 27(3) is manifestly clear in prescribing parameters of the powers of the Executive Council in relation to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Executive Council is empowered to make appointment in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Committee but if it disagrees with the recommendations of the Selection Committee for any reason, Statute 27(3) confers power on the Executive Council to record reasons for its disagreement and submit the case to the Visitor for orders. The selection Committee is an authority constituted under the Statute and its recommendations hare been given importance by the Statute and for that reason, the Executive Council is not vested with any power to set aside or to ignore the recommendations of the Selection Committee or to issue direction to it for holding fresh interview or selection.;