http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: DR. UMA KANT AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. BHIKA LAL JAIN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/10/1991

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) KANIA, M.H. FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 2272            1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 415  1992 SCC  (1) 105        JT 1991 (4)    75  1991 SCALE  (2)769

ACT:     Rajasthan  University Teachers and  Officers  (Selection for appointment) Act, 1974: Sections  3(1) & 5(1)--Expression --’Appointment’  and  ’For every selection’--Scope of.     Section  6--Appointment of Professor--Selection  Commit- tee--Constitution  and procedure--Preparation of  ’Selection List’   and   ’Reserve  List’   --Approval   by   University Syndicate--Appointment  of candidate included in the  Selec- tion List--Superannuation of appointed  candidate---Appoint- ment of candidate recommended in the Reserve List-- Validity of--  HeM with the appointment of candidate included in  the Selection    List,    Reserve   List   does    not    become extinct--Appointment of candidate recommended in the Reserve List hem valid--Purpose of Reserve List explained.

HEADNOTE:     Section  3(1) of the Rajasthan University  Teachers  and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 provides that no teacher in any University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except  on  the recommendations of the  Selection  Committee constituted  under  Section 5, and, under Section  3(2)  any appointment  made in contravention of Section 3(1)  is  null and  void. Section 6(4) of the Act provides that the  Selec- tion  Committee,  while making its  recommendations  to  the Syndicate, shall prepare a list of candidates selected by it in  order of merit and shall further prepare a Reserve  List in the same order and to the extent of 50% of the  vacancies for the post of teachers or officers.     The University of Rajasthan invited applications for the post of   Professor in the Department of Botany. The  Selec- tion  Committee recommended the name of a candidate  in  its selection  list which was approved by the University  Syndi- cate and the recommended candidate was appointed as  Profes- sor.  The appellant’s name was included in the Reserve  List which  was  to remain valid for one year as per  the  Syndi- cate’s 416 resolution.  Subsequent to the retirement of  the  initially appointed  Professor, the appellant, who was on the  reserve

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

list,  was appointed as Professor. The non  selected  candi- dates  challenged  the appointment  of  initially  appointed Professor as well as of the appellant and a Single Judge  of the  High Court held the Selection Committee’s  constitution valid  but declared the appellant’s appointment  illegal  on the  ground  that once a person selected  by  the  Selection Committee is appointed, the reserve list gets exhausted  and the  person  named in the reserve list cannot  be  appointed against a future vacancy.     On  appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court  upheld the order of the Single Judge by holding that once a  person selected  by the Selection Committee joins the reserve  list becomes extinct and if some vacancy is caused thereafter.  a fresh  and  de nova Selection Committee procedure is  to  be started. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, appeals were flied in this Court.     Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of  the High Court, this Court,     HELD:  1. A reserve list is always prepared to meet  the contingency  of  anticipated or future vacancies  caused  on account of resignation, retirement, promotion or  otherwise. This  is done in view of the fact that it takes a long  time In  constituting  a fresh Selection Committee  which  has  a cumbersome  procedure and in order to avoid ad hoc  appoint- ments keeping in view the interest of the student community. [422 F]     2. The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the  scope of reserve list only against the post  for  which the selection was made and which according to it could  only be  available  to the incumbent in the reserve list  if  the person recommended in the main list did not join such  post. Thus it was wrong in taking the view that a regular  vacancy of  Professor having arisen on the retirement  of  initially appointed  Professor,  again  a  fresh  Selection  Committee should have been constituted and no appointment on such post could  have been made from the reserve list prepared by  the Selection  Committee. The interpretation given by  the  High Court is not borne out from any of the provisions of Section 3(1),  Section  5  or sub-section (4) of Section  6  of  the Rajasthan  University Teachers and Officers  (Selection  for appointment) Act, 1974. [423 B; 422 C-D] 417     3.  Section  5  of the 1974 Act only  provides  for  the constitution of Selection Committee and the words ’for every selection’  used in sub-section (1) of Section 5  only  mean that in case of every selection of a teacher or of an  offi- cer  in University, a Committee would be constituted of  the persons mentioned in sub- section (i) of the said Section 5. [423-E]     3.1  A reading of Section 5 with Section 6(4)  makes  it quite  clear that the Selection Committee constituted  shall recommend not only the candidates selected by it in order of merit but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of the vacancies and persons kept in the reserve list will be considered as having been selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment if any vacancy is caused  during the validity period of the reserve list.  The suitability of the persons kept in the reserve list is  also adjudged by the Selection Committee which is constituted for selection of a teacher in the University. Thus no fault  can be found that the incumbent recommended in the reserve  list by  the  Selection Committee was not selected for  the  con- cerned post of teacher. [423 G-H, 424 A-B]     4. In the instant case, the initially appointed  Profes- sor  was going to retire after sometime. Therefore,  it  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

perfectly valid to select one more person and to keep him in the reserve list for being appointed on the regular  vacancy which  was shortly anticipated on account of  retirement  of initially  appointed  Professor.  The  Selection   Committee approved  and recommended the name of the appellant  in  the reserve  list  finding him suitable for appointment  on  the post of Professor. The Syndicate which is the highest execu- tive  body  in the University had also approved  the  appel- lant’s  name in the reserve list. Therefore,  the  selection and  appointment of the appellant is valid. [422  H,  423-A, 422 G, 424 F]     5. It is well settled that in matters relating to educa- tional  institutions, if two interpretations  are  possible, the  courts  would ordinarily be reluctant  to  accept  that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities. [424 E]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4094  & 4095 of 1991. 418     From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1991 of the Rajas- than High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.  48 & 50 of 1990.     P.P. Rao, M.K. Ramamurthi, S.K. Singh, Sudhanshu Atreya, Sushil  Kumar  Jain,  Ms. Bina Gupta,  Manoj  Swarup,  Miss. Lalita  Kohli,  R.F.  Nariman and Mrs. Binu  Tamta  for  the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Special Leaves granted.     Briefly  stated the facts are that University of  Rajas- than  invited applications for the post of Professor in  the department  of Botany. The Selection  Committee  constituted under Sec. 5 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and  Offi- cers  (Selection for appointment) Act of 1974 (herein  after referred  to as the ’Act of 1974’) held interviews  on  20th June,  1989 and selected Dr. G.S. Nathawat for the  post  of Professor in Botany. The name of Dr. Urea Kant was mentioned in  the reserve list by the Selection Committee. The  syndi- cate  of the University approved the list and appointed  Dr. Nathawat  on  the said post. Dr. Nathawat  retired  on  30th September,  1989 and Dr. Urea Kant who was already  selected and  kept in the reserve list was appointed as Professor  in the department of Botany. Dr. Bhikalal, Dr. Shiv Sharma, Dr. Sudhakar Mishra and Dr. T.N. Bhardwaj who were not  selected filed a writ petition in the High Court initially  challeng- ing  the appointment of Dr. Nathawat on the ground that  the Selection  Committee was not constituted in accordance  with law  and  objection  was also raised that  once  a  selected person  joins the post, the reserve list  exhausted  itself. Dr. Bhikalal and others subsequently impleaded Dr. Uma  Kant also  as  one of the respondents in the writ  petition.  The respondents, in their reply to the writ petition,  submitted that  the selection committee was properly constituted.  The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was rightly made as the life  of the  reserve  list was initially for six months  and  subse- quently  extended to one year by a resolution of the  Syndi- cate  dated  3.12.1983. Learned Single Judge held  that  the constitution  of  the Selection Committee was valid  but  as regards  the appointment of Dr. Urea Kant from  the  reserve list  it was held that once a person selected by the  Selec-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

tion  Committee  had been appointed the reserve  list  stood exhausted and the person named in the reserve list could not be  appointed against a future vacancy. The  appointment  of Dr. Urea Kant was held illegal and it was directed that  Dr. Uma  Kant  be  removed from the said post  of  Professor  of Botany.  Both  Dr.  Uma Kant as well as  the  University  of Rajasthan tiled special appeal before/he Division Bench. The Division  Bench  of the High Court by a common  order  dated March 6, 1991 upheld the order of 419 the  Learned  Single Judge and dismissed  the  appeals.  The Division Bench after considering Sections 3, 5 and 6 of  the Act  of  1974 held that the purpose of  preparation  of  the reserve list seems to be that if the person selected at  No. 1 does not join then the next man in the reserve list should be  appointed. But if the person selected by  the  Selection Committee is given appointment and he joins, then, selection made  by the Committee is exhausted and the reserve list  is of no avail and becomes extinct. It was also held that  once a  person  selected by the Selection Committee  has  joined, that post is filled and some vacancy is caused thereafter  a fresh  and de novo selection committee ’procedure has to  be started because that will be a case of future vacancy  aris- ing after the post had been filled up on the recommendations of the Selection Committee.     Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University have come in appeal by grant of special leave.     In  order to appreciate the controversy we would  advert to certain relevant provisions of the Act of 1974.  Relevant provisions of Sections 3, 5 and 6 are as follows: .LM15               Section  3 - Restrictions on  appointments  of               teachers and officers:               (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in  the               relevant law, as from the commencement of this               Act, no teacher and no officer in any  Univer-               sity in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on               the recommendations of the Selection Committee               constituted under Sec. 5.               (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-s.  (3),               every appointment of a teacher or of an  offi-               cer in any University made in contravention of               sub-s. (1) shall be null and void.               Section 5--Constitution of Selection Committee               (1) For every selection of a teacher or of  an               officer  in a University, there shall be  con-               stituted a committee consisting of the follow-               ing: -               (i)  Vice  Chancellor of the  University  con-               cerned,  who  shall  be the  Chairman  of  the               Committee;               (ii)  an eminent educationist to be  nominated               by the Chancellor for a period of one year;               420               (iii) an eminent educationist to be  nominated               by  the State Government for a period  of  one               year;               (iv)  One member of the Syndicate to be  nomi-               nated by the State Government for a period  of               one year; and               (v) such other persons as members specified in               column 2 of the Schedule for the selection  of               the teachers and officers mentioned in  column               1 thereof.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             Section 6 - Procedure of Selection Committee               (1)  The quorum required for the meeting of  a               selection committee constituted under  Section               5 shall not be less than five, out of which at               least two shall be the experts, if the  selec-               tion to be made is for the post of a  lecturer               or  any  other post of  a  teacher  equivalent               thereto.  The quorum required for the  meeting               of a selection committee for the selection  of               non-teaching posts shall be not less than  one               half of the number of members of the Selection               Committee, out of which at least one shall  be               an expert.               (2)  The  selection committee shall  make  its               recommendations  to  the  Syndicate,  if   the               Syndicate  disapproves the recommendations  of               the  selection committee, the  Vice-Chancellor               of the University concerned shall submit  such               recommendations  alongwith reasons for  disap-               proval given by the syndicate to the  Chancel-               lor for his consideration and the decision  of               the Chancellor thereon shall be final.               (3)  Every selection committee shall be  bound               by  the qualifications laid down in the  rele-               vant  law of the University concerned for  the               post  of a teacher, as the case may be, of  an               officer.               (4)  The Selection Committee while making  its               recommendations  to the Syndicate  under  sub-               section (2) shall prepare a list of candidates               selection  by it in order of merit  and  shall               further  prepare  a reserve list in  the  same               order  and to the extent of 50% of the  vacan-               cies  in the post of teachers or officers  for               which the selection committee was  constituted               under  sub-section (1) of Section 5 and  shall               forward  the  main list and the  reserve  list               alongwith  its recommendations to  the  Syndi-               cate. 421     Initially the reserve list was to remain valid upto  six months from the date of approval of the Syndicate as per the resolution of the Syndicate dated 10th July, 1978 and subse- quently  the Syndicate by its resolution passed in its  spe- cial  meeting  on 3.12.1983 decided that  the  reserve  list recommended  by  the Selection Committee  for  selection  of employee  be  treated  valid for one  year  instead  of  six months. According to the University- this was done in  order to  curtail  the ad-hoc appointments and  also  because  the regular selections take a lot of time. It may also be  noted that  the Syndicate in its meeting held on 10th  July,  1978 had resolved as under:               i.  Every Selection Committee may draw  a  Re-               serve  List  of  suitable  candidates  upto  a               number not exceeding 50% of the number of post               for  which  vacancies exist (part  vacancy  be               rounded or to the next whole number) and place               them in order of priority.               ii. The Reserve List of drawn be treated valid               upto  six months the date of approval  by  the               Syndicate of the recommendations of the selec-               tion committee(s).               iii. On the vacancies caused within the  cadre               during  six  months  of the  approval  of  the               recommendations, the candidates found suitable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             and placed in the reserve list be appointed in               the  order of priority given by the  Selection               Committee.     As already mentioned above the period of’ six months was subsequently  extended  to  one  year  by  resolution  dated 3.12.1983. The University has taken a categorical stand that since  1978 not only in the University of Rajasthan but  all other  universities in the State of Rajasthan reserve  lists are  prepared and appointments are being made from  the  re- serve  list against future vacancies arising on  account  of resignation,  retirement  or promotion. A long list  of  ap- pointments made from reserve list in various departments  of the University of Rajasthan from time to time after  joining of  the  persons from the main list from 1978 to  1990  have been  furnished  by the appellants before this court  by  an additional affidavit. It has also been stated that even  out of the petitioners who had filed the writ petition, Dr. T.N. Bhardwaj himself was kept in the reserve list and was there- after appointed on the post of reader having fallen  .vacant subsequently on account of the promotion of Dr. P. Khanna as Professor.     Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1974 puts a restriction that no teacher in any university in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommenda- 422 tions  of the Selection Committee constituted under  Sec.  5 (1), and, under Sec. 3(2) any appointment made in contraven- tion  of sub- section (1) of sec. 3 shall be null and  void. In  the  present case Dr. Uma Kant was  recommended  by  the Selection Committee constituted under Section 5. Sec. 5 only provides  for the constitution of Selection  Committee.  The High Court has found that there was no violation of  Section 5  in  the Constitution of the Selection Committee  and  the said finding has not been challenged before us on behalf  of the  respondents.  Section 6 provides for the  procedure  of Selection Committee and sub-section (4) of Section 6 clearly provides  that the Selection Committee shall prepare a  list of  candidates  selected by it in order of merit  and  shall further  prepare reserve list in the same order and  to  the extent  of 50% of the vacancies in the post of  teachers  or officers for which the Selection Committee was  constituted. The  Syndicate in its Resolution dated 10th July,  1978  had resolved that the reserve list recommended by the  Selection Committee  shall be valid upto six months from the  date  of the approval of the Syndicate which was subsequently extend- ed to one year instead of six months in a resolution  passed on 3.12.1983. In our view the High Court was wrong in taking the  view that a regular vacancy of Professor having  arisen on  the retirement of Dr. G.S. Nathawat on  30th  September, 1989  again  a fresh Selection Committee  should  have  been constituted and no appointment on such post could have  been made from the reserve list prepared by the Selection Commit- tee  on 20th June, 1989. Section 6(4) clearly  provided  for the preparation of reserve list to the extent of 50% of  the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for which  the Selection  Committee was constituted. It is not  in  dispute that  the  main list and the reserve list  prepared  by  the Selection Committee on 20th June, 1989 were approved by  the Syndicate.  We agree with the contention of  the  university that  a reserve list is always prepared to meet the  contin- gency  of anticipated or future vacancies caused on  account of resignation, retirement, promotion or otherwise. This  is done  in view of the fact that it takes a long time in  con- stituting a fresh Selection Committee which has a cumbersome procedure and in order to avoid ad-hoc appointments  keeping

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

in view the interest of the student community. The Selection Committee in the present case was constituted for the selec- tion of Professor in Botany and such Selection Committee had approved and recommended the name of the appellant Dr.  Urea Kant  in the reserve list finding him suitable for  appoint- ment on the post of Professor in Botany. The Syndicate which is  the  highest executive body in the university  had  also approved the name of Dr. Uma Kant in the reserve list  which remained  valid upto one year and we cannot accept the  con- tention raised on behalf of the respondents that the reserve list  is exhausted as soon as the person recommended in  the main  list  joined the post. In the present  case  Dr.  G.S. Nathawat was selected on 423 20th  June, 1989 and was going to retire on 30th  September, 1989  and in these circumstances it was perfectly  valid  to select  one more person and to keep him in the reserve  list for being appointed on the regular vacancy which was shortly anticipated  on account of retirement of Dr.  Nathawat.  The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the  scope of  reserve list only against the post for which the  selec- tion  was made and which according to the High  Court  could only  be available to the incumbent in the reserve  list  if the  person recommended in the main list did not  join  such post.  Such interpretation is not borne out from any of  the provisions  of  Section  3(1), Section 5 or  sub-s.  (4)  of Section  6 of the Act of 1974. The High Court took the  view that the expression ’appointment’ in sub-sec. (1) of Sec.  3 shall mean appointed initially. Then, sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 provides that for every selection of a teacher in  universi- ty,  there  shall be constituted a Committee  consisting  of persons  mentioned  therein. The High Court  held  that  the words "for every selection" are very pertinent and when read with  Sec. 3(1) and 3(2), it only means that whenever  there is  a regular vacancy for a post, a Selection Committee  has to  be constituted. When Dr. G.S. Nathawat retired  on  30th September,  1989,  a regular vacancy arose and  therefore  a Selection Committee should have been constituted afresh.     In  our  view  the High Court was wrong  in  taking  the aforesaid view. Sec. 5 only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee and the words "for every selection" used in  sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 only mean that in case  of  every selection  of  a teacher or of an officer in  university,  a Committee  would be constituted of the persons mentioned  in sub-clause  (i)  to (v) of the said Section. So far  as  the present  case is concerned, even the High Court has  arrived to  the  conclusion that the Committee constituted  for  the selection of a professor in Botany was proper and in accord- ance  with the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act of 1974.  The appellant,  Dr. Uma Kant was found suitable for the post  of professor  in  Botany and his name was  recommended  in  the reserve  list by the duly constituted  Selection  Committee. Sec.  6(4)  of  the Act of 1974 clearly  provides  that  the Selection Committee while making its recommendations to  the syndicate under sub-sec. (2) shall prepare a list of  candi- dates  selected  by it in order of merit and  shall  further prepare  a reserve list in the same order and to the  extent of  50% of the vacancies for the post of teachers  or  offi- cers. Thus a reading of Sec. 5 with Sec. 6(4) makes it quite clear that the Selection Committee constituted shall  recom- mend  not  only the candidates selected by it  in  order  of merit but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of the vacancies and persons kept in the reserve list will be considered as having been selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment if any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

424 vacancy is caused during the validity period of the  reserve list.  The  suitability of the persons kept in  the  reserve list  is also adjudged by the Selection Committee  which  is constituted  for selection of a teacher in  the  university. Thus no fault can be found that the incumbent recommended in the reserve list by the Selection Committee was not selected for  the  concerned post of teacher. In our  view  the  very purpose of preparing a reserve list would be defeated if the view taken by the High Court is accepted that once a  person selected  by  the selection committee has joined  that  post then  selection made by the Committee is exhausted  and  the reserve  list is of no avail and becomes extinct. There  was no meaning or purpose of keeping the reserve list alive  for a  long  period of one year, as no person selected  for  the post  can  at all be expected not to join for  such  a  long period of one year.     If we examine the matter from another angle, it would be clear  that according to the university such a procedure  is in vogue in all the universities of Rajasthan that a reserve list  is  used for the appointment on a vacant  post  caused during the validity period of the reserve list, and numerous appointments  had  been  made in the last  decade  from  the reserve list. The university has also submitted that if  the view taken by the High Court is held to be correct, it  will create  chaotic situation in the university as all  appoint- ments so far made from the reserve list will become  assail- able. It is well settled that in matters relating to  educa- tional  institutions, if two interpretations  are  possible, the  courts  would ordinarily be reluctant  to  accept  that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities.     In  the  result, we allow these appeals, set  aside  the impugned  Judgment of the High Court and hold the  selection and appointment of the appellant, Dr. Urea Kant as valid  on the post of Professor in Botany in the University of  Rajas- than. T.N.A                                                Appeals allowed. 425