ALOK SHARMA, J - (1.) Mr. Vigyan Shah and Mr. Nitin Jain appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated
(2.) 1.2017, the petitioners both in the unreserved category and reserved category, were selected by a duly constituted selection committee for the post of Deputy Registrar. The petitioners selection was preceded by a shortlisting of applicants for the post through written examination and subsequent approval by the Syndicate, as provided for in the Ordinance 359(E) of University of Rajasthan Ordinances. Office order dated 7.8.2018 appointing the petitioners as probation trainee Deputy Registrars was issued. Yet the petitioners were not allowed to join. Instead vide order dated 16.8.2018, appointment orders of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars were kept in abeyance purportedly in view of the communication dated 9.8.2018 - wholly illegal and arbitrary - emanating from the Chancellor of the University. 2. Counsel submitted that appointment of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars with the respondent University is governed by the Rajasthan Universities' Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereafter 'the Act of 1974'). Clause-(iv) of Section 2(1) of the Act of 1974 defines the "Officer" inter-alia to mean the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Asstt. Registrar, the Librarian of a University including any other officer by whatever name designated and declared by the Statutes to be an officer of the University. Counsel submitted that Section 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974 generally deal with the Constitution of Selection Committee for appointment of officers, and the Procedure of Selection Committee respectively. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1974 provides that the Selection Committee make its recommendations to the Syndicate and only in the event of the Syndicate disapproving the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor of the University would have the power to take a view one way or the other, on the selections of officers by the Selection Committee.
(3.) Counsel submitted that in the instant cases, the Syndicate in its meeting of 4.8.2018 having affirmed the selections of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars by the Selection Committee, the Chancellor of the University had no jurisdiction at all to exercise any power qua the selections made. It was further submitted that even in terms of Section 10 of the University of Rajasthan Act 1946 which comprehensively deals with the power of the Chancellor of the University, no such power to interfere with the selections made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Syndicate is decipherable. This counsel submitted is without prejudice to the legal submission that the Act of 1946 on the one hand being a general Act with regard to the University of Rajasthan's affairs and the Act of 1974 on the other being a special Act dealing specifically with selection and appointment of the officers of University, the Chancellor would have no power under the said Act of 1946 to interfere with the selections made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Syndicate. In support of their contentions, counsel have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neelima Misra Versus Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors. (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746.;