- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak, challenges the order passed by the Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the University) dated 9th August, 1999 and the consequential order dated 13th August, 1999 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Chancellor by its order impugned dated 9th August, 1999 decided the representation filed by respondent No. 3, Anirudh Prasad, under section 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Universities Act ). Respondent No. 3, Anirudh Prasad, has challenged the appointment of the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak on the post of Reader in the Law Faculty of the University.
(2.) THE case of respondent No. 3 is that the post of Reader in Law Faculty and the appointment of the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak, is wholly illegal, inasmuch as the petitioner Raj Kishore Pathak did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Reader in Law Faculty. The Selection Committee in its meeting dated 10th October, 1997 has interviewed the candidates including the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak, and found that except for the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak, everybody possesses the requisite educational qualification including respondent No. 3. With regard to the petitioner Raj Kishore Pathak it is stated that he has obtained his Post Graduation Degree in Political Science and has also done his research work in Political Science whereupon he was awarded a Doctorate Degree by the University. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was accepted by the Executive Council by its resolution dated 11th October, 1998. Respondent No. 3 has alleged in his representation to the Chancellor that the respondent No. 3 being a member of the Executive Council has recorded his dissent against the recommendation of the appointment of Sri Raj Kishor Pathak but the then Chairman of the Selection Committee, Professor R. K. Misra, was all out for recommending the name of the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak. Respondent No. 3 has further submitted in his representation to the Chancellor that he has annexed a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Triloki Nath Singh v. Dr. Bhagwan Bhagwan Din Misra, (1990) 4 SCC 510=1990 (61) FLR 648 (SC ). whereby the Apex Court has categorically observed that for the post of Reader the research should be in the subject concern, therefore, a degree in the subject of Political Science cannot be considered as a degree required for appointment as Reader in Law Faculty. The petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak, has passed his graduation (B. Sc.) in III division and therefore does not possess requisite qualification for appointment as teacher within the phrase of "consistent good academic record'. Respondent No. 3, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of approval of the recommendation for appointment of Sri Raj Kishore Pathak, the petitioner.
(3.) ON a notice being issued by the Chancellor, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all these allegations. The University has also submitted its comments before the Chancellor. The University has taken stand before the Chancellor that respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be an aggrieved person who can approach the Chancellor under section 68 of the Universities Act. The University submitted that before the Selection Committee for the appointment to the post of Reader in Law the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak, who was already working in the Law Faculty as Reader, along with four others, was present before the Selection Committee. The University has also denied the allegations of mala fides in favour of the petitioner, Raj Kishore Pathak. The University's stand before the Chancellor is further that in the curriculum of Law, Constitutional Law is one of the subjects and, therefore, the research work done by the petitioner, which is one of the topics of Constitutional Law, can be said to be a research work done by the petitioner in law department and in Political Science department. The petitioner, Raj Kishor Pathak, apart from having passed B. Sc, has passed B. A. also in which he has secured more than 54% marks, therefore, the stand taken by respondent No. 3 that he does not possess the consistant good academic record is incorrect.;