S. K. Dhaon J.- - (1.) THE petitioner, a Reader in the department of Economics in the University of Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the University) challenges the legality of the order dated 20th March, 1986, passed by the Chancellor of the University directing the appointment of Dr. A. D. Sharma (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Sharma) as a professor in Economics.
(2.) A meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 30th July 1985. Besides Dr. D. S. Kushwaha, the Head of the Department, and the Vice Chancellor two experts, namely Dr. Ayodhya Singh and Dr. R. N. Tripathi participated in the meeting. Out of the 16 candidates in all for interview only 10 were present. These persons were interviewed. The Selection Committee by a majority recommended Dr. Sharma alone for appointment. The Head of the Department recorded a note of dissent. "During the discussion after the interview Dr. Ayodhya Singh stated that out of external candidates no. 10 and 13 are good. But if choice is to be made amongst internal candidates Dr. Sharma may be recommended because he is D. Litt. I informed the members that a panel must be drawn. Dr. Sharma got Readership on the strength of his D. Litt. Thereafter he has no work to his credit. He is junior to Dr. V. K. Anand and Shri D. K. Ghose who were appointed in 1977. There is no logic in giving a single name recommendation when equally and better qualified and senior readers are there. The recommendation is therefore violative of statutory provisions and is being forced by majority. Only on August 9, 1984, the Selection Committee did not find Dr. Sharma fit for the post. There is nothing to indicate that he has contributed anything thereafter. I disassociate myself with such a recommendation when even a panel is being refused to be drawn and merit and work for the past few years after Readership (by internal candidates) is being ignored." The Head of the Department, on 3rd August, 1985, sent a confidential communication to the Chancellor pointing out therein the irregularities committed by the Selection Committee in its meeting held on 30th July 1985, for selecting a professor in Economics. On 17th October, 1985, the Head of the Department sent another communication to the Chancellor. In this communication there was a reference made to the communication of 3rd August 1985. In this communication the head of department mentioned these material facts. On 30th July 1985, the Vice Chancellor and Dr. Ayodhya Singh (one of the experts were present at the venue of the meeting when he (Head of the Department) reached there. The name of the third expert was not disclosed to him and that expert did not turn up. The Vice Chancellor asked the Head of the Department if he could offer Dr. Ayodhya Singh a Visiting Professorship in Economics in the University as the current assignment of Dr. Singh at Manipur was to come to an end on 30th September, 1985. The Head of Department willy nilly accepted the suggestion of the Vice Chancellor although he could sense the ulterior motive of the Vice Chancellor in making the suggestion. A similar suggestion was made by the Vice Chancellor regarding the second expert Dr. R. N. Tripathi, who was, at that time, without any assignment. The Vice Chancellor handed over a blank piece of paper and asked the Head of the Department to make the proposals. He accordingly made the proposals offering visiting professorship in Economics in the University to the two experts. Under the instructions of the Vice Chancellor the offers to the two Professors to be made by the Vice Chancellor formally were typed out and brought forth by the stenographer. The proposals of the Head of the Department and the letters of offers to be made and to be signed by the Vice Chancellor were dated 30th July 1985. The Vice Chancellor signed the two letters, but later on observed that the letters should not bear the same date as that of the interview. A new set of letters were brought by the stenographer bearing the date 31st July 1985 The Vice Chancellor asked the Head of the Department to write down fresh set of proposals bearing the date of 31st July 1985. The letters containing the offer of the Vice Chancellor were handed over to the two experts. The interview commenced. The Vice Chancellor then made a casual observation to the two experts that he was looking for a suitable person, preferably a retired Professor of Economics, to take over as a full-time Director of the Agro Economic Research Centre of the University. During the course of the proceedings of the selection committee Dr. Sharma entered and whispered some thing in the ears of the Vice Chancellor. The Vice Chancellor thereafter walked out without leaving any instructions. The proceedings were held up One of the experts enquired from the Registrar as to whether the proceedings of the Selection Committee should continue or not. Before the Registrar could give a reply Dr. Sharma came in again saying "Sorry I am in again but this time not as a candidate but as a Proctor". Dr. Sharma informed the committee that he had been asked by the Vice Chancellor to convey to it (the committee) that the interview may continue as he was busy with the students. The Vice Chancellor remained absent from the meeting for about 45 minutes and in his absence four candidates were interviewed. After the interviews were over Dr. Ayodhya Singh (expert) said that the candidates at SI. no. 9 and 13 were good but if an internal candidate was to be considered Dr. Sharmas' name be recommended. The other expert and the Vice Chancellor readily and simultaneously endorsed the suggestion of Dr. Ayodhya Singh. The head of the department insisted that in case the committee felt that an internal candidate should be selected he (the head) at least should be heard. The Vice Chancellor observed that he knew Dr. Sharma better than the Head. The Vice Chancellor also observed that he would not permit any argument or discussion. One of the experts, Dr. Tripathi, observed that the Committee were not bothered about the opinion of the Head. The Vice Chancellor then belligerently asked the Head to put his note of dissent. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was not sealed in the presence of the Head and he walked out of the meeting. The two experts made the following note :- "Dr. A. D. Sharma is the best amongst the candidates interviewed and suitable for the appointment and hence recommended." On 31st July 1985, the Vice Chancellor addressed a letter no. C-VII/VC-85 to the two experts aforementioned. The material contents of the letter were, "The University of Allahabad proposes to offer you the post of visiting Professor under UGC Scheme. You are, therefore, requested to send three copies of your bio data for further necessary action at our end." On 16th August, 1985, the Secretary to the Governor sent a communication to the Registrar of the University. In it, it was pointed out that the chancellor had received a complaint from a member of the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Professor in Economics, the meeting of which was held on 30th July 1985. The Secretary observed : "In his complaint the complainant has stated that : (1) Something specific was offered in writing by the Vice Chancellor before the interview began to the two experts present in the meeting which was highly objectionable and in the utter contravention of the prescribed norms for fair selection, and which had the intention of winning the undue favour of the concerned experts from a particular candidate. (2) The Vice Chancellor abstained from the proceedings of the Selection Committee for about 46 minutes and four candidates were interviewed during his absence. (3) The name of an internal candidate has been recommended who also happens to be the chief proctor of the University by the Selection Committee- with a dissenting note from the Head of the Department and the Head of the Department was not allowed by the Vice Chancellor to present his viewpoint, either as a member of the Selection Committee or as the Head of the Department. (4) The recommendation was not sealed in the presence of the Head of the Department, which is a usual practice, and the Head of the Department left the place of the meeting only after it was formally called off by the Vice Chancellor (Chairman). (5) The candidate recommended by the Selection Committee was not the best one in terms of merit and seniority. 2 I am directed to request you to send a detailed factual report, pet- bearer, along with the relevant proceedings of the above selection committee for submission to the Chancellor."
(3.) IT appears that on 18th August 1985, the Registrar sent a reply to the Secretary to the Chancellor. However, it appears that the Secretary did not received the reply till 5th October, 1985, as on that date he sent a reminder to the Registrar and asked him (the Registrar) to send his comments latest by 15th October, 1985. A meeting of the Executive Council of the University was convened on 9th September, 1985 and one of the items for consideration was the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the post of Professor of Economics. However, the meeting was postponed to 27th October, 1985. On 25th October, 1985, the Vice Chancellor sent a communication to the Secretary to the Chancellor stating therein that a meeting of the Executive Committee was scheduled to be held on 27th October, 1987, and the consideration of the recommendation of the Selection Committee relating to the appointment of Professor of Economics was on its agenda. The Vice Chancellor pointed out that unless the Chancellor desired otherwise, the Executive Council will consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee and take a decision which will, of course, be subject to the decision of the Chancellor. The Secretary the Chancellor, on 26th October, 1985, wrote to the Vice Chancellor. The material portion of the communication was : ".........As I had informed you personally when you last met me in Lucknow, until the Chancellor conveys a decision on the matter pending before him it would neither be appropriate for you to place the matter before the Executive Council nor would it be in order for the Executive Council to take any decision on it. The consideration of the item before the Executive Council, therefore, be postponed till the Chancellor's orders are received.........". In view of this direction of the secretary, the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 27th October, 1985, did not consider the recommendation of the Selection Committee. On 22nd November 1985, the Secretary to the Chancellor sent a communication to the Registrar of the University stating therein that the proceedings of the Selection Committee may be put up before the next meeting of the Executive Council for its decision and whatever decision is taken by the Executive Council should be communicated to the Chancellor. Further, the Secretary also made it clear that no offer of appointment should be made to any candidate till the decision if any is taken by the Vice Chancellor. The proceedings of the Selection Committee, which were summoned by the Chancellor, were also sent under a sealed cover to the Registrar. There is nothing on record to indicate as to when the said communication was received by the Registrar of the University. There is also nothing on record to indicate as to what was the date of the next meeting of the Executive Council after 22nd November 1985. Further, there is nothing to indicate as to whether any meeting of the Executive Council was convened prior to 30th November 1985. Indeed, the affidavits filed by the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and the record of the University produced before us are conspicuously silent on the aforesaid questions.;