http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: DR. TRILOKI NATH SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. BHAGWAN DIN MISRA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2063            1990 SCR  (3) 727  1990 SCC  (4) 510        JT 1990 (3)   513  1990 SCALE  (2)268

ACT:     U.P.  State  Universities  Act,  1973:  Sections  31(5), 66(9)--Panel of experts--Constitution of--Subjects of  Hindi language  and literature and  linguistics--Whether  separate subject of study.

HEADNOTE:     A  Selection  Committee consisting of five  Members  was constituted  to recommend names for appointment to the  post of Reader in ’Linguistics’ in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow. The Selection Committee after  inter- viewing the candidates recommended the name of the appellant while respondent No. 1 was placed in the second position.     Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging  the recommendations of the Selection  Committee on  the ground that the Selection Committee was not  legally constituted  because  three experts on  the  Committee  were experts in Hindi Literature and not Linguistic experts.  The High  Court  allowed the petition and inter alia  held  that under  Statute  171 of the University,  the  Chancellor  was required to nominate experts out of the panel of experts  in the  subject of ’Linguistics’, which was a separate  subject of  study in the University; that the nomination of  experts out  of the panel drawn from the subject of  Hindi  suffered from  a serious legal infirmity; and that Explanation II  to sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 was wholly inapplicable to the instant case.     Before  this  Court it was contended on  behalf  of  the appellant  that in view of the fact that a Reader  in  ’Lin- guistics’ was to be appointed in the Department of Hindi  as such  experts  in Hindi Language and  Literature  were  also qualified  to act as experts for the selection of Reader  in ’Linguistics’.     Respondent  No. 1, while supporting the judgment Of  the High  Court, submitted that Linguistics was a separate  sub- ject of study for M.A. Part-I and Part-II and merely because the  post of Reader in Linguistics was in the Department  of Hindi,  it would not make any difference and the experts  of Hindi Language and Literature could not be 728 appointed  as  experts in the Selection  Committee  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

selection of Reader in Linguistics. Dismissing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  (1)  The prospectus of the  University  makes  it abundantly  clear  that separate courses of study  are  pre- scribed  for M.A. Part I or Part II in respect of  Hindi  on the one hand and Linguistics on the other. [734B]     (2) The subject of Hindi Language and Literature and the subject  of  Linguistics are entirely separate  subjects  of study. This is clearly borne out from Explanation I to  sub- section (5)(a) of section 31 of the Universities Act. [733H; 734A]     (3)  Explanation I lays down in a clear manner that  for the  purpose  of this sub-section, a branch  of  subject  in which  a separate course of study is prescribed for a  post- graduate degree, or for Part I or Part II thereof, shall  be deemed to be a separate subject of study. [734A]     (4)  It is an admitted position that separate Panels  of Experts  were drawn for the subjects of Hindi  and  Linguis- tics. [732E]     (5)  In  the instant case, the  advertisement  no  where provided that one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected as common to more than one  subject of  study. Merely because the post of Reader in  Linguistics was required in the Department, it cannot be held that  such Reader  in Linguistics was to teach the subject of  Linguis- tics  as well as the subject of Hindi Language  and  Litera- ture. [734G-H]     (6)  Explanation II to sub-section (5) of section 31  of the  Universities  Act can only apply in a  case  where  one common  teacher is to be selected for more than one  subject of study and in that contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study. [735A-B]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  156(N) of 1976.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  3.12.1974  of  the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1974. Ms. Rachna Gupta and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant. 729 R. Bana for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KASLIWAL,  J.  This  Civil Appeal by  Special  Leave  is directed  against the Judgment of the High Court of  Judica- ture at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dated 3.12.1974. The  High Court by a common order disposed of number of Writ Petitions but we are concerned with Writ Petition No. 418/74 filed  by Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra who is respondent No. 1 before us.     Brief facts of the case are that in the month of August, 1973  an  advertisement  appeared  in  the  daily  Newspaper "National  Herald"  inviting applications for  the  post  of Reader  in ’Linguistics’ in the Department of Hindi  of  the University of Lucknow. Interview of the candidates was  held on  8.4.74 at 3.00 p.m. by a Selection Committee  consisting of five members viz. the Vice Chancellor of the  University, Dr. K.N. Shukla, Head of the Department of Hindi and  Modern Indian  Languages Lucknow University, Dr.  Bhagirath  Misra, Head  of the Department of Hindi Saugar University,  Saugar, Dr.  Harbanslal  Sharma, Head of the  Department  of  Hindi, Aligarh  Muslim University, Aligarh and Shri  Shyam  Sunder, Head of the Department of Hindi Bihar University,  Muzaffar- pur. It may be noted that the three experts from outside  as mentioned  above  were experts in Hindi Literature  and  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

Linguistic experts. The Selection Committee after interview- ing  the  various  candidates recommended the  name  of  the appellant, Dr. Triloki Nath Singh for being appointed to the post  of  Reader  Linguistics in Hindi  Department  and  the respondent  No. 1, Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra was placed  in  the second position.     Dr.  Bhagwan  Din Misra, respondent No. 1 filed  a  writ petition  in  the  High Court inter-alia  stating  that  the Selection Committee was not a legally constituted  Committee and  its recommendation should not be acted upon.  The  writ petition  was contested on behalf of the University as  well as by the appellant. The High Court held that the prospectus of  the University showed that ’Linguistics’ was a  separate subject of study. There were two courses in M.A. Part-I  and Part-II,  one  in Hindi Language and  Literature,  and,  the other  in  Linguistics. The High Court  observed  that  even candidates,  having passed the B.A. examination in  Sanskrit or English, or M.A. Examination in Sanskrit or English  were also  eligible for admission in M.A. in Linguistics  in  the Department of Hindi. Linguistics was thus a separate subject of study and even graduates, who might not have passed the 730 B.A.  Examination with Hindi, were entitled to  be  admitted and awarded the degree of M.A. in Linguistics. The  Chancel- lor  under  Statute 17 1 of the University was  required  to nominate experts out of the panel of experts in the  subject of  ’Linguistics’. The High Court further held  that  having regard to the fact that ’Linguistics’ was a separate subject of study in the University of Lucknow and the Chancellor had drawn a panel of experts in ’Linguistics’, the nomination of experts  out  of the panel drawn for the  subject  of  Hindi suffered  from  a  serious  legal  infirmity,  substantially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee, which could  not have been cured under Section 66(a) of the  Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter as the Act of  1973)  and as such the recommendation of  the  Selection Committee was liable to be quashed.     The High Court as a result of the above findings allowed writ  petition No. 418/74 and quashed the recommendation  of the  Selection Committee dated 8th April, 1974 for  appoint- ment  to the post of Reader in ’Linguistics’ in the  Depart- ment  of  Hindi. Dr. Triloki Nath Singh has thus  filed  the present appeal challenging the order of the High Court.     We  have heard counsel for both the parties. It  may  be mentioned  that  the Lucknow University  neither  filed  any appeal  against the order of the High Court nor any  counsel appeared  on its behalf before us. Learned counsel  for  the appellant contended that under Explanation II to sub-section (5)  of Section 31 of the Act of 1973 the experts drawn  out of  the  panel of experts in Hindi could make  selection  of Reader in ’Linguistics’ in the Department of Hindi.     It was further contended that in view of the fact that a Reader  in ’Linguistics’ was to be appointed in the  Depart- ment of Hindi as such experts in Hindi Language and  Litera- ture were also qualified to act as experts for the selection of  Reader in ’Linguistics’. Learned counsel tried  to  seek support  from the papers taught for M.A. in  Linguistics  as well  as  for M.A. in Hindi in order to convince  that  some papers  were common to both the subjects, and as such  there was  nothing wrong or illegal in case the experts  of  Hindi Language and Literature were appointed for the selection  of Reader in Linguistics.     On  the  other hand learned counsel for  the  respondent No.1  supported the Judgment of the High Court. It was  sub- mitted  by  him that Linguistics was a separate  subject  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

study  for  M.A. Part-I and Part-II and merely  because  the post of Reader in Linguistics was in the 731 Department  of Hindi, it would not make any  difference  and the  experts  of  Hindi Language and  Literature  cannot  be appointed  as  experts in the Selection  Committee  for  the selection of Reader in Linguistics.     We  have  considered the arguments advanced  by  learned counsel  for both the parties and have perused  the  record. There  is no controversy between the parties that  the  pro- spectus of Lucknow University Department of Hindi and Modern Indian  Languages prescribed the courses of study  for  M.A. Part-I  and  Part-II in the subject of  Hindi  Language  and Literature, and Linguistics separately.     The  prospectus  of Lucknow  University,  Department  of Hindi  and Modern Indian Languages prescribed the  following courses  of  study  for M.A. Part-I and  Part-II  for  Hindi Language and Literature and the other for Linguistics- M.A. Parts I and II     There  shall two courses in M.A. Parts I and II  one  in Hindi Languages and Literature and the other in Linguistics. Students may choose either of these two courses. M.A. part I     (Language and Literature) Paper   I       Prachin Hindi Kavya Paper  II       Madhyayugeen Kavya Paper III       Basic and Modern Indian Language Paper IV        History Hindi Literature and Criticism Paper V         Adhunik Hindi Gadya M.A. and Part II (Language and Literature)                  There shall be four papers and a viva  voce test. Paper   I        Linguistics and Historical Grammar of Hindi Paper  II        Vishesh Kavi Paper III        Adhunik Kavya Paper IV         Essay or Thesis or Folk Literature. M.A. Part I      (Linguistics) Paper    I        Introduction to the principle  of  General Linguistics 732 Paper  II        Phonetics and Phonemics Paper III        Descriptive Grammar of Hindi Paper IV        Applied Linguistics. M.A. Part 11     (Linguistics)                  There  will be four papers and a viva  voce test. Paper   I        Morphology and syntex Paper  II      Comparative and Historical Linquisitics  with special reference to Indo-Aryan and Hindi Language. Paper  III        Dialectology with special reference  Hindi Area. Paper IV        Essay or Thesis.     The  above  courses of study show beyond any  manner  of doubt  that Hindi Language and Literature  and,  Linguistics are  two different and separate subjects. It is also  impor- tant  to  note that even graduates who have not  passed  the B.A.  examination with Hindi could be admitted  and  awarded the  degree of M.A. in Linguistics. Merely because the  Lin- guistics  is also a subject of study in one paper of  Hindi, it  cannot be said that Linguistics and Hindi  Language  and Literature  fall  under  the same subject of  study  in  the University.  It is an admitted position that separate  Panel of Experts was drawn for the subjects of Hindi and  Linguis- tics.     As the Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously placed  reliance  on Explanation II to  sub-section  (5)  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

Section  31 of the Act of 1973 it is necessary to  reproduce the same. Sub-Section (5) of Section 31 reads as under: "31.(5)(a) A panel of six or more experts in each subject of study  shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after  consulting the  corresponding  Faculty in Indian Universities  or  such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside Uttar Pradesh  as  the Chancellor may  consider  necessary.  Every expert  to be nominated by the Chancellor under  sub-section (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on such panel.           (b)  The  Board of each Faculty shall  maintain  a standing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of study, and every expert to be nominated by the Vice- 733 Chancellor  under  sub-section (4) shall be a  person  whose name is borne on the panel. (c) A panel referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be revised after every three years." Explanation/--For the purposes of this sub-section, a branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a post-graduate degree or for Part I or Part II  thereof shall be deemed to be a separate subject of study. Explanation 11-- Where the post of teacher to be selected is common  to  more than one subject of study, the  expert  may belong to either of such subjects of study.     The High Court while considering a similar argument made before  it held that Explanation II could be availed  of  by the Chancellor when he has drawn a fresh panel of experts in each  subject  of study under sub-section (5)(a).  The  High Court  further held that Explanation II cannot  be  divorced from  the  substantive provision  contained  in  sub-section (5)(a).  It cannot stand independently of and separate  from the  sub-section.  The  Explanation must be read  so  as  to harmonise  and clear up any ambiguity in the  main  sub-sec- tion. The High Court thus concluded that Explanation II  was wholly inapplicable to the instant case and the question had got to be determined whether the experts who constituted the Selection Committee were the experts drawn out of the panel, under  Clauses 168 and 169 of the Statutes. The  High  Court then  observed that according to the prospectus of the  Uni- versity  Linguistics was a separate subject of study in  the University  of  Lucknow and the Chancellor had  a  panel  of experts on Linguistics drawn under Statutes 168 and 169, the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn for the subject of  Hindi suffered from a serious legal  infirmity  substan- tially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee which could not have been cured by Section 66(a) of the Act.     We  are  examining the matter in  a  slightly  different manner.  Even if the panel already constituted by the  Chan- cellor  prior to the coming into force of the Uttar  Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, is treated as a panel  consti- tuted  under sub-section (5)(a) of Section 31 of the Act  of 1973  Explanation II does not render any help to the  appel- lant. We are in complete agreement with the High Court  that subject of Hindi Language and Literature and the subject  of Linguistics are entirely 734 separate  subjects of study. This is clearly borne out  from Explanation 1 to sub-section (5)(a) of Section 31 of the Act of 1973. Explanation I lays down in a clear manner that  for the  purpose  of this sub-section, a branch  of  subject  in which  a separate course of study is prescribed for a  post- graduate  degree or for Part I or Part II thereof  shall  be deemed to be a separate subject of study. The prospectus  of the  University  makes  it abundantly  clear  that  separate courses  of study are prescribed for M.A. Part I or Part  II

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

in  respect of Hindi on the one hand and Linguistics on  the other.  Explanation  II  lays down that where  the  post  of teacher to be selected is common to more than one subject of study, in that case the expert may belong to either of  such subjects  of study. The advertisement issued in the  present case  was placed before us and which clearly made a  mention at  Serial No. 24 "One Reader in Linguistics in the  Depart- ment  of Hindi". At Serial No. 23 there was a separate  men- tion "There Readers in Hindi". The qualifications  essential for the above posts as mentioned in the advertisement  reads as under: "QUAlIFICATIONS: ESSENTIAL:  First or high Second Class Master’s  Degree  and Doctorate  in  the subject concerned with  a  good  academic record  and  experience  of  teaching   honours/postgraduate classes for not less than five years and published  research work  of high standard in the subject concerned. The  essen- tial degree qualification for the post of Readers in Faculty of Law will be LL.M. degree."     The above provision laying down essential qualifications also goes to show that first or high second class degree and doctorate in the subject concerned was an essential qualifi- cation.  As  already mentioned above  posts  were  mentioned separately  for  three Readers in Hindi and  one  Reader  in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi. Explanation II could only apply in a case where the post of teacher to be select- ed was common to more than one subject of study.  Advertise- ment no where provided that one Reader in Linguistics in the Department  of  Hindi was to be selected as common  to  more than one subject of study. Merely because the post of Reader in  Linguistics was required in the Department of Hindi,  it cannot be held that such Reader in Linguistics was to  teach the  subject of Linguistics as well as the subject of  Hindi Language  and Literature. It may also be noted that  from  a perusal of the above advertisement alongwith the  prospectus of the University clearly goes to show that for the post of 735 Reader in Linguistics it was necessary to have an  essential qualification of first or high second class Master’s  degree and Doctorate in the subject of Linguistics. Explanation  II can  apply in a case where one common teacher is to  be  se- lected  for more than one subject of study and in that  con- tingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such  subjects of study. In the case in hand before  us  the advertisement did not mention that the post of one Reader in Linguistics  in the Department of Hindi was common with  any other  subject  of study. Thus the appointment  of  all  the experts  in  the present case of subject of  Hindi  for  the selection of one Reader in Linguistics in the Department  of Hindi was totally wrong and illegal.     In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any ground in the appeal to interfere with the Order of the High Court. In the result this appeal fails and is rejected  with no order as to costs. R.S.S.                                                Appeal failed. 736