R. S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner and the respondent no. 4 are at issues as to who ought to hold the post of Lecturer in the department of Military Science at a College in Azamgarh known as Shivli National College. THE issue then is if teachers are not qualified would not faith in higher education itself be eroded.
(2.) THERE was a leave vacancy at the aforesaid College on the post of a lecturer in Military Science. The person who held the post of lecturer, substantively was Ansar Khan. He would not be available for a period of three years. For this period the Committee of Management of this College set about to make an interim arrangement though the Committee of Management was totally conscious of the fact that the interim arrangement even could only be made provided the candidate holds the requisite qualifications in reference to the Statutes which were applicable. The College is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The Statutes in reference to the context are under the head ' Qualifications and appointment of teachers in Affiliated Colleges '. These are framed under section 49 of the State Universities Act, 1973. The Statute in reference to the context is 11.13 and is reproduced below :- 11.13 (1) In the case of any college affiliated with the University, the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts (except the Department of Fine Arts and Music) and the Faculties of Commerce and Science ; namely : (a) An M. Phil degree or a recognised degree or a recognised degree beyond Masters level or published work indicating the capacity of a candidate for independent research work ; and (b) Consistently good academic record with atleast first or high second class Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University, in a relevant subject. Four persons applied for the post totally conscious of the fact that the post itself was for a specified period. The Selection Committee considered and recommended the respondent no. 4, Abdul Qayam. The recommendation of the Selection Committee of 14 March 1986 was awaiting the approval or disapproval of the Vice Chancellor under sub clause (11) (a) of section 31 of the Act. The Management of the College in accordance with sub clause (b) of the aforesaid section is obliged to submit the recommendation of the Selection Committee with other relevant documents to the Vice Chancellor for approval. On this aspect the Vice Chancellor must convey his disapproval within one month otherwise the proviso to sub section (11) (c) aforesaid mentions that should the Vice Chancellor not convey disapproval within a period of one month from the date of receipt of document or does not express anything in reference to such an appointment then it would be deemed that approval has been accorded. On this technicality, the entire writ petition and the defence of the respondent is based. Section 31, in reference to the context of sub section (11) is reproduced below :- "31. Appointment of Teachers (1) ......(2)......(3)......(4)......(5)......(6)......(7)......(8)......(9)......(10)...... (II) (a) No teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) unless prior approval of the Vice Chancellor has been obtained. (b) The Management shall, as soon as possible, after the meeting of the Selection Committee, submit the recommendations of the Committee, along with other relevant documents to the Vice Chancellor for approval. (c) The Vice Chancellor, if he is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualifications or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the selection of the teacher has not been followed, shall convey to the Management his disapproval : Provided that if the Vice Chancellor does not convey his disapproval within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the documents referred to in clause (b) or does not send to the Management any intimation in connection therewith, he shall be deemed to have approval of the proposal. " The petitioner contends that in reference to the qualifications which the contesting respondent possesses and in comparison to what he possesses there is hardly any doubt as to who is better qualified to hold the post and if merits were actually to be considered then it is inconceivable that he could be rejected so lightly.
(3.) WHILE this Court does not desire to recommend on who ought to be selected but it cannot help appreciating what the petitioner contends and his plea is not such that it could be rejected outright. There is much in what the petitioner has to contend in regard to the qualifications which he possesses as opposed to the qualifications which the contesting respondent has. The qualifications of the two, the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 alongwith the other candidates who were considered at that time are as below :- JUDGEMENT_291_AWC1_1988Image1.jpg It is on record that while the Selection Committee selected the contesting respondent, the Vice Chancellor disapproved the decision of the Selection Committee. The Act has conferred such a discretion on the Vice Chancellor for no other reason than that the standards of higher education are to be maintained. If this was not the intention then the legislature would not have conferred, in effect, a power of veto over the Selection Committee, in the Vice Chancellor. On a technicality that the Vice Chancellor's approval did not reach within one month of the receipt of the record by him, there was a circumstance of deemed approval and the contesting respondent with qualifications which do not meet with the standards prescribed, received an appointment letter. It is on record that Members of the Legislative Assembly also expressed their views to the Chancellor that they were not satisfied in the manner in which the appointment letter was issued to the contesting respondent. ;