S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition relates to appointment on the post of Professor of Mathematics in the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the University' ).
(2.) BY advertisement No. 4/77, the University invited applications for appointment on various posts including the post of Professor of Mathematics in the University. Dr. M. C. Gupta, the petitioner in this writ petition, was at that time holding the post of Reader in the Department of Mathematics in the University. He submitted his application in pursuance of the said advertisement. A Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Special Conditions of Service)Act,l974,for the purpose of making selection for the post of Professor in Mathematics. The said Selection Committee interviewed the applicants, including the petitioner, on 14. 04. 1978 and it recommended the name of Dr. N. D. Gautam for appointment on the post of Professor of Mathematics. The Selection Committee also prepared a reserve list wherein it recommended a panel of two names for appointment on the post of Professor in Mathematics. The name of the petitioner was the first among the said two names. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were considered by the Syndicate of the University, at its meeting held on 16. 06. 1978 and the Syndicate decided to appoint Dr. N. D. Gautam as Professor in Mathematics. In accordance with the said decision of the University Dr. N. D. Gautam was appointed as Professor in Mathematics on 16. 06. 1978 and he joined the said post on the same day. Subsequently a vacancy arose on the post of Professor of Mathematics on account of retirement of Professor G. C. Patni and the Syndicate of the University, in its meeting held on 31. 08. 1978, passed a resolution that the petitioner be appointed as Professor in the University Department of Mathematics in the consequential vacancy of Dr G. C. Patni. In accordance with the said resolution of the Syndicate the letter dated 3. 10. 1978 was issued by the Registrar of the University whereby the petitioner was appointed as Professor in Mathematics. The said appointment of the petitioner was on probation for two years. In pursuance of the said letter of appointment the petitioner joined the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics of the University on 31. 08. 1978. It appears that some letters were received by the University from some persons wherein objections were raised with regard to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics. The said letters were considered by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 3. 10. 1978. After considering the said letters the Syndicate, in the said meeting, decided that the appointment of the petitioner as Professor of Mathematics was not correctly made and the same should be cancelled. In accordance with the said resolution of the Syndicate, the Registrar of the University sent a letter (Ex. R/l), whereby the petitioner was informed that his appointment as Professor of Mathematics had been cancelled with effect from 3. 10. 1978 and that he had been reverted to the original post as Reader in the Department of Mathematics. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 3. 10. 1978 with regard to the cancellation of his appointment on the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics, the petitioner has filed this writ petition wherein he has prayed that the resolution of the Syndicate dated 3. 10. 1978 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner be quashed and the petitioner be allowed to continue on the post of Professor in Mathematics. The writ petition has been contested by the University and the reply has been filed on its behalf. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said reply. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was re-appointed as Professor in Mathematics on 16. 06. 1979 and now he has also retired from service. The controversy in this writ petition is, therefore, confined only to the matter of payment of difference in the salary for the post of Professor in Mathematics and for the Reader in Mathematics for the period from 3. 10. 1978 to 16. 06. 1979. Shri Maloo, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions in support of the writ petition : (i) The meeting of the Syndicate held on 3. 10. 1978 was not properly convened and, therefore, the resolution passed at the said meeting with regard to the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in Mathematics is without authority of law. (ii) The resolution of the Syndicate dated 3. 10. 1978. whereby the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in Mathematics has been cancelled, is based on the letters received from certain persons but no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to make his submissions with regard to the objections raised in those letters relating to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in Mathematics. The decision of the Syndicate with regard to the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner was thus taken in disregard of the principles of natural justice. Shri Calla, the learned counsel for the University, has supported the action of the University. Shri Calla has also urged that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not issue a writ and set aside the resolution of the Syndicate dated 3. 10. 1978 because the setting aside of the said resolution would have the effect of restoring the resolution dated 31. 08. 1978 with regard to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Professor in the Department of Mathematics which is illegal.
(3.) AS regards the first contention relating to the convening of the meeting of the Syndicate on 3. 10. 1978 it may be stated that in Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the University of Rajasthan Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it is laid down that Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to convene meetings of the Senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council, and joint meetings of faculties. At the relevant time Shri V. P. Tyagi was the Vice-Chancellor of the University. On 2. 09. 1978, Registrar of the University had passed the following order :- "shri V. P. Tyagi, Vice-Chancellor has been advised rest for a fortnight commencing from September 2, 1978 by the Doctor. Therefore, he shall not be attending office from September 2, 1978 to September 16, 1978 (both days inclusive ). He has ordered that in his absence the work of the Vice-Chancellor be looked after by a Committee consisting of the following members:- 1. Prof. Daya Krishna - Chairman 2. Prof. S. Lokanathan 3. Prof. T. K. N. Unnithan 4. Prof. Iqbal Narain 5. Prof. R. K. Kaul. " By order dated 19. 09. 1978, which was issued in continuation of the earlier order dated 2. 09. 1978, it was directed that the members of the Committee working for the Vice-Chancellor shall continue to work till further orders. Shri Maloo has urged that these orders dated 2. 09. 1978 and 19. 09. 1978 passed by the Vice-Chancellor were illegal and without authority of law in as much as Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Act an express provision has been made for carrying on the office of the Vice-Chancellor in case a temporary vacancy has occurred in the office of the Vice Chancellor by reason of leave, illness or otherwise and it has been provided that in such a case the Pro-Vice-Chancellor may carry on the office of the Vice-Chancellor and where there is no Pro-Vice-Chancellor or he is also temporarily absent the matter must be reported to the Chancellor by the Syndicate and the Chancellor can make such arrangement to carry on the office of the Vice-Chancellor as he may deem fit. The submission of Shri Maloo is that there was no Pro-Vice-Chancellor in the University at that time and, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (7) of Section 12, the Chancellor along was entitled to make suitable arrangement for carrying on the office of the Vice-Chancellor in the absence of Shri V. P. Tyagi and the Vice-Chancellor (Shri V. P. Tyagi) was not entitled to constitute a Committee for looking after the work of the Vice-Chancellor in his absence. In my view, there is considerable force in the aforesaid submission of Shri Maloo. Sub-section (7) of Section 12 of the Act prescribes as under :- " 12 (7) - When a temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurs by reason of leave, iilness or otherwise, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall carry on the office of the Vice-Chancellor. Where, however, there is no Pro Vice-Chancellor or he is also temporarily absent, the Syndicate shall forthwith report the same to the Chancellor who shall make such arrangements for carrying on the office of Vice-Chancellor as he may deem fit. " ;