Palok Basu, J. - (1.) THE city of Allahabad, though famous for its religious heritage, has a proud possession in the Institution known as Allahabad University. Formerly, reverentially referred to as the "Oxford of the east", the alumni of which University are adorning highest seats in political, social and cultural fields, the present day professors of this University have also earned international reputation, some of whom are well -known to the citizens not only of Allahabad but the State, if not the country. Two such reputed teachers of the University are arrayed unfortunately in this petition, being the Petitioner Dr. K.K. Azad and the opposite party No. 3 Dr. B.L. Sharma. Both of them have established their own reputation and hail from the Mathematics Department of this University which had seen the like of Dr. Gorakh Prasad, Professor R.N. Chaudhari and Dr. B.N. Prasad etc.
(2.) THIS litigation revolves round the question whether the Petitioner who has been called for an interview fixed for 18th of May, 1995 before the Selection Committee, Is entitled to challenge the said meeting on the ground that the inclusion of Dr. B.L. Sharma in the Selection Committee is illegal and further that requirement of 15 days' notice said to be required under Statute No. 11.11 framed under the State Universities Act, has not been complied with. This writ petition was filed on 16th of May, 1995 and since the matter was of extreme urgency, it has been heard yesterday and today at considerable length. Sri A.K. Yog, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued the matter with ability which is opposed by Sri Ashok Bhushan appearing on behalf of the University and Sri D.P. Singh as an intervener on behalf of one of the opposite parties Dr. B.L. Sharma (opposite party No. 3).
(3.) BEFORE coming to the facts of this case, a short history of an earlier litigation should be produced here. Two posts for Professorship fell vacant in the Mathematics Department of the University. The Selection Committee recommended the name of Sri B.L. Sharma (in absentia) at serial No. 1 and the name of the Petitioner Dr. K.K. Azad at serial No. 2 and the name of Dr. R.S. Sengar at serial No. 3 in order of merit for the post No. 1. For the other post the Petitioner Dr. K.K. Azad was placed at serial No. 1 ; Dr. R.S. Sengar at serial No. 2 and Dr. R.S.D. Dubey at serial No. 3. When this matter went to the Executive Council, the serial was changed by which Dr. R.S. Sengar was put at serial No. 2 position and the Petitioner Dr. K.K. Azad was shifted to serial No. 3 position. This compelled Dr. Azad to file a representation before the Chancellor Under Section 68 of the State Universities Act, (for short 'the Act'). The Chancellor dismissed the same on the ground that in the meantime the University has made a reference Under Section 31(8) of the Act. The Chancellor, therefore, trained from deciding the sajd representation. The Petitioner then preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 39516 of 1993 in which an interim order was passed on 10th of May, 1995, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure T to this writ petition. The last two paragraphs of the said interim order, may be useful, are quoted here : There is no need to go into these arguments for the time being because admittedly the Petitioner has not yet made a representation Under Section 68 of the Act after he came to know of the decision referred to in Annexures C.A. 1 and C.A. 2 quoted above. The Petitioner may, if he so advised, file a representation within a week from today before the Chancellor who may on the special facts of this case, decide the same preferably within six weeks for the reason that professor B.L. Sharma who is the Head of the Department is retiring on 28th May. 1995. However, if any appointment has to be made, before the decision of this writ petition, it will be subject to the orders in the writ petition which may be passed after the Petitioner informs the Court the result of his representation by the Chancellor. Needless to say that if the Chancellor takes any view in favour of the Petitioner, this Court shall not be called upon to go into the merits at all in this writ petition.;