- (1.) THIS writ petition by two persons, who were participants in the selection proceedings held by the Lucknow University for appointment on the post of Professor in the subject of Experimental Solid State Physics in the De partment of Physics, Lucknow University, Lucknow, wherein the respondent No. 4 was also one of the candidates considered for appointment challenge the two orders passed by the Chancellor, viz. one passed on a reference under Section 31 (8) (a) of the State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and the other passed on the representation preferred by the petitioners under Section 68 of the Act. All the three persons, namely, the two petitioners and respondent No. 4 were working as Reader in the Department of Physics.
(2.) THE Selection Committee under Section 31 (4) of (he Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for the sake of brevity) was constituted. Three experts were nominated by the Chancellor. The Selection Committee interviewed eight candidates but recommended only one candidate, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Tandon, respondent No. 4. The Selection Committee stated as under: "after considering the academic record, research, publications, teaching experience as also experience of research supervision, and overall perfor mance of the candidates at the interview, the Committee resolved to recom mend the following for appointment to the post of one Professor of Physics (Specialization in Experimental Solid State Physics) (Unreserved ). " When the matter was placed before the Executive Council, the Executive Council expressed disagreement with the recommendations of the Selection Committee as question regarding eligibility/possession of necessary qualifica tion by the respondent No. 4 for being appointed as Professor in the subject of Physics (Experimental Solid State Physics) was raised. The Vice-Chancellor made an effort to convince the Executive Council that the respondent No. 4 was fully eligible and she possessed all the qualifications, but finally the Executive Council decided that the matter be referred to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act. The resolution passed by the Executive Council is on record, which shows that a couple of members viz. Prof. T. P. Pandiya, Prof. Nishit Kumar Rai, Sri Srinivasa Tiwari and Dr. Vibha Awasthi raised the objection that respon dent No. 4 did not possess the requisite qualification. Finally, the Executive Council did not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee and referred the matter to the Chancellor as aforesaid. The Chancellor, while considering the said reference, first delved upon the question as to whether there was any disagreement to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee by the Executive Council as unless there was a disagreement, Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act, could not be attracted and then ad dressed himself on the question of eligibility of respondent No. 4.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Chancellor shows that he has re corded his opinion about non- applicability of the provisions of Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act in the instant case as according to him the aforesaid provision would only be attracted when ttiere is a clear and specific disagreement of the Executive Council to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and such specific disagreement of the Executive Council is not present in this case, as only certain members were of the view that the respondent No. 4 was not pos sessed of the requisite qualifications. After recording the aforesaid finding, the Chancellor ought to have referred the matter back to the Executive Council for consideration since in absence of any disagreement, the reference made under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act was found by him as incompetent, leaving it open on the part of the Executive Council to decide and take further action. But the Chancellor instead of sending the mat ter back to the Executive Council made observations with respect to the eligibility of respondent No. 4 also, but while doing so, the Chancellor did not enter into the question of possession of requisite qualifications by the respondent No. 4 himself and only relied upon the-fact that her name was recommended by the experts and the Vice-Chancellor, who is also the subject expert, gave his view in her favour, therefore, the respondent No. 4 was fully possessed of the requisite quali fications. ,.;