Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11212 OF 2017
RAM CHANDRA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the
th
judgment and order dated 25 March, 2014, passed by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Writ Petition
No. 17066 of 2014, whereby the said writ petition was
dismissed.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
1
3. The RespondentBundelkhand University (hereinafter
referred to as “the University”) had published an advertisement
for making appointments to various posts of teaching faculty in
the year 2002.
4. The appellant had applied in response to the said
advertisement and was interviewed by a Selection Committee,
which was constituted in accordance with subsection (4) of
Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Act’).
5. Though, the appellant was not found suitable for the post
advertised, he came to be appointed as a Lecturer (Geology)
th
vide order dated 28 February, 2002.
Another advertisement came to be issued in the year 2002
6.
for the post of Reader in the subject of Geology. The Selection
Committee, which was constituted in accordance with the
statutory provisions, found the appellant suitable and
recommended him for appointment as a Reader in the subject
of Geology. The Executive Council of the University, in its
2
st
meeting held on 1 February, 2003, accepted the said
recommendation. The appellant was, accordingly, appointed as
Reader in the subject of Geology.
It appears that after a long period following the appellant’s
7.
appointment, certain complaints were made to the Hon’ble
Chancellor that the appellant’s appointment was not in
accordance with law. The Hon’ble Chancellor therefore,
initiated suo motu enquiry under Section 68 of the 1973 Act. In
the enquiry, the Hon’ble Chancellor found that the appointment
of the appellant was not in accordance with law and as such,
rd
he issued an order dated 3 March, 2014, under Section 68 of
the 1973 Act, directing to set aside the successive
appointments and promotion of the appellant. In pursuance
thereof, the appellant’s service came to be terminated vide order
th
dated 7 March, 2014. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant
filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. The
th
High Court of Allahabad vide impugned order dated 25 March,
3
2014, dismissed the Writ Petition No.17066 of 2014. Aggrieved
thereby, the present appeal.
8. We have heard Ms. Neela Gokhale, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Agarwal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent
University.
9. The Hon’ble Chancellor, while finding that the appellant’s
appointment was not legal, has observed that the Selection
Committee to be constituted under Section 31(4)(a) of the 1973
Act was required to have three experts to be nominated by the
Hon’ble Chancellor. The Hon’ble Chancellor found that neither
the University sent the requisition for nomination of the subject
experts nor he had appointed any subject experts. It was
therefore found that the selection which was contrary to the
provisions of Section 31 of the 1973 Act, was not sustainable in
law.
10. Undisputedly, even when the appellant was appointed as
th
a lecturer in the year 2002 vide order dated 28 February,
4
2002, he had responded to the advertisement and his selection
was done after the selection procedure as prescribed under the
1973 Act was followed. Insofar as the post of Reader is
concerned, an advertisement was specifically issued for the said
post. The appellant had applied in response to the said
advertisement. The Selection Committee having two subject
experts, interviewed him. After finding him to be suitable, the
Executive Council of the University accepted the
recommendation of the Selection Committee and only
thereafter, the appellant was appointed. It could thus be seen
that the selection of the appellant was done after following the
selection procedure as prescribed by the 1973 Act.
11. A perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor
would reveal that the Hon’ble Chancellor has observed that
after year 2001, the University had not sought nomination for
panel of experts.
12. A further perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble
Chancellor would reveal that the Hon’ble Chancellor had
5
forwarded the names of the following persons in response to the
th
letter of the ViceChancellor dated 25 May, 2001:
1. Prof. S.K. Lunkad, Kurukshetra University, Haryana.
2. Prof. N.K. Singh, Patna University, Bihar.
3. Prof. V.K. Verma, University of Delhi.
4. Prof. S. Mukherjee, University of Calcutta (WB)
5. Prof. Y.P. Gupta, University of Jammu (J&K)
13. Perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor
itself would reveal that the Selection Committee, which selected
the appellant for the post of Reader, consisted of the following
members:
1. Prof. Ramesh Chandra – ViceChancellor/Chairman.
2. Prof. S.K. Lunkad – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.
3. Prof. Y.P. Gupta – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.
4. Prof. S.P. Singh – HOD & Dean Faculty of Science.
5. Shri V.K. Sinha – Registrar/Secretary.
14. It could thus be seen that Prof. S.K. Lunkad and Prof. Y.P.
Gupta, who were nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor vide
th
communication dated 13 July, 2001, were very much there in
the Selection Committee.
15. It can thus clearly be seen that the Selection Committee
consisted of two Chancellor’s nominees. In any case, if fresh
6
nominations were not sought for by the University from the
Hon’ble Chancellor, the appellant cannot be faulted with. It is
a matter of fact that the appellant came to be appointed after
undergoing entire selection process as required under the
statute. The order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor itself
would reveal that the two Chancellor’s nominees were available
in the Selection Committee which selected the appellant.
rd
16. In that view of the matter, we find that the order dated 3
March, 2014, passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated
th
7 March, 2014, passed by the Registrar of the University and
the impugned order passed by the High Court are not
sustainable in law. There is no finding in the impugned order
of the High Court that the appellant does not possess the
requisite qualification. The appellant had served for a period of
12 years before the order directing his termination was passed
by the Hon’ble Chancellor. In that view of the matter, we are of
the considered view that the termination of the appellant is not
sustainable in law.
7
17. We are informed that during the pendency of the appeal,
the appellant has already superannuated. We will, therefore,
have to accordingly mould the relief.
18. It is also stated at the bar that in view of the order of
th
status quo passed by this court on 9 May, 2014, the appellant
still continues to occupy the University accommodation. After
superannuating, the appellant is not entitled to continue with
the said accommodation.
19. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
rd
(ii) The order dated 3 March, 2014, passed by the
th
Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated 7 March, 2014,
passed by the Registrar of the University and the
th
impugned order dated 25 March, 2014, passed by
the High Court of Allahabad are quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Since the termination of the appellant is set aside,
the appellant would be entitled for all the terminal
8
benefits treating the period between the date of
termination and the date of retirement as a period in
continuous service. However, the appellant would
not be entitled for back wages for the period during
which he was out of employment.
(iv) All the terminal benefits to which the appellant is
entitled, shall be paid to him within a period of three
months from today.
(v) The appellant is directed to handover vacant and
peaceful possession of the University accommodation
in his occupation within a period of three months
from today.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 10, 2022.
9