J.S. Khehar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims to have joined Punjab Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the PAU') in 1965. In June 1997, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation after having rendered 32 long years of service. In view of his association with the PAU, he claims to be deeply concerned with its activities. In furtherance of his aforesaid interest, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate direction to declare as illegal the appointment of Dr. K.S. Aulakh as Vice Chancellor of the PAU.
(2.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while making appointment of Dr. K.S. Aulakh as Vice Chancellor of the PAU, the prescribed procedure has not been followed. In the aforesaid context, reliance has been placed on Clause 2 of the statutes, wherein the procedure for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor has been prescribed. The same is extracted hereunder : - "2. The following procedure shall be adopted for the appointment of Vice Chancellor : - (a) The Boardmay either take up the matter on its own or elect a screening committee of three persons. The committee shall select its own chairman. The committee may advertise and/or obtain suggestions from such other persons, institution and agencies as it may deem fit. (b) On receipt of applications and/or suggestions mentioned in clause (a) above, the committee shall prepare a list of names of candidates for scrutiny. On the basis of this list, the committee shall recommend at least three names to the Board in the order of preference unless the number of eligible candidates is less than three. (c) The Board may ask the Committee to consider additional prospects or engage in further deliberations. (d) When a list has finally been accepted, the Board may arrange informal or formal interviews with one or more of the prospective appointees and make the final selection as provided in sub -section (1) of Section 15 of the Act. (e) Where the Board fails to appoint the Vice Chancellor in the manner prescribed in Section 15 of the Act within 2 months of the receipt of intimation of the vacancy, the matter shall be reported to the Chancellor to enable him to make the appointment." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terms of the mandate of Clause 2 of the Statutes, it is imperative to issue an advertisement and solicit names of suitable candidates to man the office of Vice Chancellor. It is also imperative that at least names of 3 candidates should be short -listed and the best amongst them is appointed after conducting a process of selection. On a collective perusal of Clause 2 of the statutes extracted above, we are of the view that the Board is vested with the discretion to follow one of two procedures. It may either lake upon itself to finalise the name of a candidate for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor. Alternatively, it may delegate a part of the aforesaid deliberation to a screening committee. In case the latter alternative is chosen, it is open to the screening committee to issue an advertisement for inviting names of suitable candidates. Whether or not any advertisement is issued, the Committee after its deliberations is required to make its recommendations to the Board. The recommendations should include at least three names (unless the available candidates are less than three). The list recommended by the screening committee is then to be examined by the Board which would take a final decision. The procedure for appointment noticed above is to be adopted only if the Board requires the screening committee to assist it in the process. The aforesaid procedure, however, is not envisaged if the Board adopts the other alternative, namely to take upon itself the issue of appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor.
(3.) FROM the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is evident that the Board did not seek the assistance of the screening committee for finalising the appointment of Dr. K.S. Aulakh, respondent No. 3, to the office of Vice Chancellor. If the Board takes upon itself the matter of appointment of the Vice Chancellor, the question to be determined is, whether names should be solicited by the Board through an advertisement and/or whether at least three names should be short listed (unless the available candidates are less than three) and also whether a process of selection should be conducted so as to finalise the best candidate out of those short -listed.;