Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed, on being aggrieved by the order of Vice Chancellor, disapproving the recommendation of selection committee for appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer for B. Ed. classes in Nagrik Degree College, Janghai, District Jaunpur. The petitioner had approached the Chancellor by means of representation 'as provided under Section 68 of the State University Act but without any success.
(2.) THE relevant facts, briefly stated are, that four posts for teaching B. Ed. classes in Nagrik Degree College, Janghai, District Jaunpur, were advertised in the Newspaper dated 17-11-76. THE Principal of the Institution wrote to the Vice Chancellor for nominating experts on the selection committee. By means of Annexure-4 dated 17-12-76 the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University communicated the names of two experts for constituting the selection committee. THE two experts nominated are Prof. S. P. Chaubey, Head of the Department of Education, Gorakhpur University and Dr. Sita Ram Jaiswal, Education Department, Lucknow University. THE selection committee was scheduled to be held on 3-3-1977 but it was not held on that day and the selection was postponed until further orders. It appears, that in certain Circumstances, the posts in question were re-advertised in the month of September, 1977 in the News Paper. True copies of the News Papers making first advertisement dated 17-11-76 and the second advertisement made in September 1977 have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. After the posts were re-advertised in September, 1977, 6-11-1977 was fixed for holding the meeting of the selection committee. THE meeting, as scheduled, was held and the candidates were interviewed. THE selection committee consisted of Rajendra Prasad Shukla as Acting Principal of the Institution, Tarak Nath Tripathi, the nominee of the Principal, Damodar Misra the President of the Institution, Dr. Sarjoo prasad Chaubey, Expert and Dr. Sita Ram Jaiswal, Expert. A true copy of the minutes of the selection committee has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same indicates that the selection committee had recommended the names of four persons unanimously, including the name of the petitioner, Avadh Behari Pandey, at serial no. 3 of the list of selected candidates. THE committee had recommended for appointment of the selected candidates on probation in the scales approved by the Government. Although under Section 31 (11) (a) of the U. P. State Universities Act it is provided that no Teacher recommended by the selection committee shall be appointed unless prior approval by the Vice Chancellor has been obtained yet it appears that the Management appointed the petitioner by means of an appointment letter dated 7-11-77, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It has, however, been mentioned that the appointment was subject to the approval by the Vice Chancellor. Clause (b) of sub-section (11) of Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act (for short the Act) provides that the Management, as soon as possible, after meeting of the selection committee shall submit the recommendation of the committee alongwith other relevant documents to the Vice Chancellor for approval. In compliance with the above noted provisions the Management forwarded the recommendation of the selection committee alongwith some other papers to the Vice Chancellor. According to the petitioner the papers were sent to the Vice Chancellor on 3-2-1978 but were received by the Vice Chancellor only on 10-6-78. However, on behalf of the University it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the said papers were received on 12-6-78. Since it was thought by the Vice Chancellor that all the relevant papers were not sent by the Management by means of a registered letter dated 26-6-78 written by the Registrar, the Management was asked to furnish the papers mentioned therein. A true copy of the letter has been filed on behalf of the Gorakhpur University. A perusal of this letter indicates that it was written in reference to the Management's letter dated 3-2-1978. It, therefore, appears that the letter requesting for according approval, sent by the Management, to the Vice Chancellor, is dated 3-2-1978, as averred by the petitioner but it seems to have been delivered to the Vice Chancellor only on 12-6-78. A reply to the letter of the Registrar, requiring the Management to furnish certain documents, is said to have been given by Sri Ram Dularey Tripathi, the Principal of the College by means of his letter dated 22-7-78. A true copy of the letter of the Principal has been filed as Annexure B-2 to the counter affidavit of the University. In his letter Sri Tripathi has pointed out several illegalities and irregularities in the selection held for the post in question. THE University, in its counter affidavit, has stated that the letter written by the Principal was received by the Vice Chancellor. However, the petitioner, in the writ petition has stated that the information required by the Vice Chancellor was submitted by the Manager under covering letter on 4-11-78. A true copy of the letter enclosing the required information has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition. THE above averment has been made in the writ petition and I find that the reply submitted by the University by means of a counter affidavit does not specifically controvert the averments of the petitioner to the effect that the required information was furnished on 4-11-78 through letter; Annexure 10, to the writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that although the required information was furnished yet no communication was received from the Vice Chancellor, within one month, disapproving the proposal. It has been averred that the petitioner, in pursuance of the selection held, was given appointment by means of appointment letter dated 7-11-1977 and he had been teaching but he has not been paid his salary inspite of repeated requests and demands made. Ultimately the petitioner had no option but to file a writ petition in this Hon'ble Court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed, by order dated 10th April 1980, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure No 11 to the writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner had already preferred a representation to the Chancellor which was then pending. The Chancellor sent representation of the petitioner, to the Vice Chancellor, as the representation dated 19-12-78 preferred by the petitioner did not fall within the purview of Section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act. A true copy of the communication sent on behalf of the Chancellor has been filed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. It also mentions that the Vice Chancellor shall take appropriate action and apprise the petitioner of the action taken by him in the matter. The Vice Chancellor disposed of the representation by his order dated September 10, 1980, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The Vice Chancellor in his order said that there was no question of according approval to the selection of Teachers as fresh nomination of experts was not asked for after the posts were re-advertised. The Management had called the experts who were nominated earlier. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Vice Chancellor the petitioner approached the Chancellor by means of a representation, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. The Chancellor rejected the representation by his order dated March 7, 1981, a true copy of which has been filed as Annexure 19 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the order passed by the Chancellor, it appears, that on behalf of the petitioner it was claimed that the petitioner should be deemed to have been approved by the Vice Chancellor, under the proviso to Section 31 (11) (c) of the Act, since the disapproval was not communicated within one month of submission of the relevant papers under Section 31 (11) (b) of the Act. This contention was, however, rejected by the Chancellor observing that the Management had submitted required documents after great delay, as a result of which the matter got delayed and disapproval could not be communicated within the time namely within one month. It has also been observed that communication for furnishing relevant papers was sent by the Vice Chancellor within one month of the receipt of the relevant documents which were first submitted by the Management on 12-6-1977, therefore, benefit of deeming clause was not available to the petitioner. On merits, it was held by the Chancellor that a fresh request should have been made for nominating experts after re-advertisement of the posts. Another ground, which has been taken into account by the Chancellor in holding the selection invalid, is that the constitution of the selection committee was invalid as the rightful Principal and his nominee had not participated in the meeting of the Committee, instead Sri Shukla and his nominee had participated. It is in the above circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed impugning the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 the Vice Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University and by Sri R. D. Tripathi, the Principal of the Institution, the opposite party no. 3 The case of the opposite parties is that the selection was bad and invalid as held by the Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor on the grounds enumerated in their orders.
(3.) AS noted earlier, the reason given by the Vice Chancellor for not according approval was that the names of new experts were not asked for after the re-advertisement of the post. The Principal, in his reply dated 22-7-/8, had pointed out in paragraph 6 that a request for nomination of experts should be made within 14 days from the date of advertisement and in that connection had referred to the provisions of Statute 13 D of Statutes but I find that it deals with some other matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has not been able to lay his hands upon any such provision under the Act or Statute requiring fresh nomination of experts after re-advertisement of the post in respect of which experts had already been nominated. However, on behalf of the University Sri Umesh Chandra, has shown, ' Interpretation of First Statutes of Gorakhpur University by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his powers under Section 13 (1) and 13 (4) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973. Clause 13 of the said interpretation prescribes procedure for selection and appointments of Teachers in the affiliated colleges. Sub-clause (e) of Clause 13 provides that the request for experts from the Vice Chancellor shall be made by the Principal of the College within a fortnight from the first issue of advertisement. The Chancellor while upholding the order passed by the Vice Chancellor disapproving the proposal, gave an additional ground for disapproving the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Chancellor in his order has held that the Selection Committee was illegally constituted inasmuch as the regularly appointed Principal Sri R. D. Tripathi and his nominee were not included in the Selection Committee instead the Acting Principal and his nominee had participated. The Chancellor in his order has found that the order of suspension passed against Sri R. D. Tripathi has been stayed on 16-9-77 but he was not allowed to resume charge before 6-12-77. Since the order of suspension stood stayed on the date on which the Selection Committee met, it was only Sri R. D. Tripathi and his nominee who could participate in the meeting. In reply to the said argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Chancellor was not competent to hold the selection and proposal of appointment illegal on the ground which was not a ground for disapproval by the Vice Chancellor. The Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act Could only examine the decision of an authority, in the light, whether it was in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Statutes or Ordinance, or not. The Chancellor could only examine the order passed by the Vice Chancellor and could not add a fresh ground for holding selection invalid. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Selection Committee of an affiliated College is not an authority or Officer of the University. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pressed into service the provision of Section 66 of the Act which provides that no proceeding of any authority or body or committee of University shall be invalid merely by reason of some defect in constitution of the body or for the reason that some person took part in the proceedings who was not so entitled or because of any irregularity in procedure not effecting the merits of the case. It has been submitted that the decision of the Selection Committee was unanimous in favour of the petitioner. Even if the Acting Principal and his nominee had not participated the requisite quorum would be there and recommendation with experts and the representation of the Management would have been quite valid and legal. In reply. Sri Umesh Chandra submitted that the whole proceedings of the committee would be vitiated if two persons who were not authorised to participate did participate knowingly in an authorised manner.;