Executive Council’s statutory obligation to appoint recommended candidates is subject to Chancellor’s power to annul vitiated proceedings.

The petitioner was initially an Assistant Librarian on a contractual/ad-hoc basis at the respondent University; however, his services were terminated on May 13, 2008, following allegations of irregularities

Concurrently, the petitioner applied for a regular post of Assistant Librarian under an employment notice dated February 5, 2007

A selection committee recommended his appointment on May 18, 2008

During the Executive Council’s 31st meeting, concerns regarding his prior termination were raised, leading to a fact-finding committee which initially favored the petitioner

Subsequently, the Executive Council passed a resolution on September 17, 2008, referring the matter to the Chancellor for guidance

While the petition was pending, the Chancellor discovered that the petitioner was erroneously awarded 5 marks for a Ph.D./M.Phil. he did not possess and that a more meritorious candidate (scoring 62 against the petitioner’s 55) was bypassed

Consequently, the selection was canceled on April 17, 2009

1. Whether the Executive Council is mandatorily bound to appoint a candidate recommended by the selection committee under Section 51(5) of the Act of 1998, or if it can refer the matter to the Chancellor for scrutiny.

2. Whether the Chancellor possesses the statutory authority to annul selection proceedings under Section 11(4) if they are found to be inconsistent with the Act.

3. Whether the cancellation of the selection without a prior show-cause notice violates the principles of natural justice.

The Court applied Section 51 of the Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998, which governs the appointment of teaching posts based on the recommendations of a selection committee

It further relied on Section 11(4) of the same Act, which empowers the Chancellor (Kuladhipati) to annul any proceedings of any University authority or committee that are not in conformity with the Act

The Court invoked the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant as argued by the petitioner but ultimately prioritized the statutory checks and balances within the Act

It also applied the legal precedents of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, establishing that a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to appointment

State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, reinforcing that a recommendation does not vest a right to the post

The Court reasoned that while Section 51(5) uses the word "shall" regarding appointments, this obligation is contingent upon a "valid and lawful recommendation" as per Section 51(4)

The Court found that the selection committee failed its statutory duty by awarding marks for non-existent qualifications and bypassing a superior candidate, rendering the recommendation a legal nullity

The Court held that Section 11(4)(a) provides the Chancellor with absolute power to strike down vitiated proceedings that are not in conformity with the Act; therefore, Section 51(5) cannot be read in isolation to compel the University to finalize an illegal appointment

Regarding natural justice, the Court determined that since the foundational facts (illegal allocation of marks) were undisputed, a show-cause notice would be an "empty formality" as it could not cure the patent illegality of the selection

It further noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the subsequent formal cancellation orders dated April 17, 2009, and May 19, 2009, rendering the primary relief infructuous

The Court concluded that the Executive Council acted with administrative prudence in referring the matter to the Chancellor and that the Chancellor acted within his statutory jurisdiction under Section 11(4)

The writ petition was dismissed on its merits with no order as to costs