08 October 1996
Supreme Court
Download

ABDUL HAMEED, FAZLI Vs ADAM MALIK KHAN

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: SLP(C) No.-019827-019827 / 1996
Diary number: 69390 / 1996
Advocates: Vs SANGEETA KUMAR


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DR. ABDUL HAMEED FAZLI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ADAM MALIK KHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Special  leave petition has been filed against the judgment and  order of  the High  Court of Allahabad made on September 4, 1990 in MCWP No. 38618/94.      The admitted position is that for one permanent post of lecturer in  Islamic studies  in the  Department of  Islamic Studies   of   Aligarh   Muslim   University,   Aligarh   an advertisement  was   issued  pursuant   to  which  the  writ petitioners 1,3 and 4, Research Scholars in same department, together  with   the  petitioner  and  another  applied  for selection.  The   Selection  Committee  constituted  by  the University conducted  the selection  and  one  Abdul  Hameed Fazli, a  temporary lecturer was selected and posted against the said  vacancy  on  may  19,  1994.  The  same  Committee selected three  more persons  including the  petitioner  and kept them  in the  reserve list.  When the temporary vacancy had arisen  the petitioner  came to be appointed in the said post.      The respondents  filed the  writ petition  on the  High Court questioning the appointment of petitioner and the very power of the Executive Committee and the Selection Committee to prepare  the select  list and  keep a  reserve  list  for appointment  against  vacancies  without  resorting  to  the selection as  contemplated under  Section 29  of the Aligarh Muslim University  Act. The Division Bench of the High Court had held  that the  procedure adopted    the  University  in consituting a  committee for recommendation under resolution Item  No.58   and  recommendation   of  that  Committee  for preparing select  list  and  keeping  that  list  alive  for filling up  the vacancies arising due to retirement etc. are in violation  of Section  29(2) (a)  of the  Act  and  that, therefore, the  resolution and  the action  of the Executive Council were ultra vires the power. Thus, this special leave petition.      Shri Bimal  Roy Jad, learned consel for the petitioner, strenuously contended  that the view taken by the High Court is incorrect. Section 29(2) does not prohibit preparation of reserve list  for appointment  to meet  the  contingency  of filling up  the vacancies  that would  fall due to permanent incumbent’s going  on deputation  or on his retirement etc.;

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

the selection  process would  be a  tardious process  taking long period  for selection  of the  student community  would stand to  lose their  classes. With  a view  to  avoid  such contingency, the Executive Council had resolved to recommend the procedure  to be followed as policy pursuant to which it was resolved  to prepare a reserve select list of candidates to fill  up the  vacancies that  would have  arisen. Since a vacancy had  arisen in  the Department  of Islamic  Studies, temporary appointment  of the  petitioner came  to be  made. This procedure  is being followed even after the judgment of the  High  Court;  as  per  the  office  proceeding  of  the University dated  September 21,  1996 temporary appointments came to  be made  to several  Department and, therefore, the view is not correct  in law. In support thereof, the learned counsel has  placed reliance  on a judgment of this court in Dr. Uma  Kant &  Anr. v.  Dr. Bhika  Lal Jain & Ors. [(1991) supp. 1 SCR 415].      The question  is whether  the view  taken by  the  High Court is  not correct in law? Section 29 of the Act reads as under:      "29.  Terms   and   conditions   of      service of  teachers.-(1)  All  the      teachers of  the University  of any      of its  Institutions shall,  in the      contrary, be  governed by the terms      and  conditions   of   service   as      specified    in    the    statutes,      Ordinances and  Regulations of  the      University:       Provided that no alteration in the      salary, the rate of contribution to      the Provident  fund and  the age of      superannuation of  a teacher in the      service of  the University shall be      made  to  his  disadvantage  except      with the  previous approval  of the      Visitor.      (2)(a)    All    appointments    to      permanent posts  of teachers in the      University shall  be  made  by  the      Executive    Council     on     the      recommendation   of   a   Selection      Committee in  accordance  with  the      provisions of  these Statutes after      such   posts    have   been    duly      advertised   and   the   candidates      concerned have  been interviewed by      the Selection  Committee decides to      consider the  case of  a  candidate      otherwise  than  by  an  interview.      Except as otherwise provided for in      his  contract   of  service   every      teacher  thus   selected  shall  be      placed on probation for a period of      one year,  on the  expiry of  which      period  he  may  confirmed  in  his      post. If  his not so confirmed, the      expiry of  his probationary  period      as may be practicable or extend the      period of  his  probation  for  one      year at  the end of which, if he is      not  confirmed  in  his  post,  his      service  shall  be  dispensed  with      after the  expiry of  the period of      extension of his probation:

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    Provided that,  if a  person in the      permanent service of the University      is appointed on probation to higher      post in  the  same  department,  he      shall not  lose  his  lien  on  his      substantive post,  nor shall  he be      deprived  of   the  Provident  Fund      Status to  which he was entitled at      the time  of his appointment to the      higher post  during the   period of      his probation: Provided     further      that  the   service  of  a  teacher      appointed  on   probation  may   be      terminated at  any time  during the      probationary period  by giving  two      months’  notice  without  assigning      any reason.      (b)  In      making       temporary      appointments to posts of teachers--      (i) if the temporary vacancy is for      a duration longer than one academic      session, it  shall be filled on the      advice of  the selection  Committee      in accordance  with  the  procedure      indicated  in  the  preceding  item      (a); and      (ii) if  the temporary  vacancy  is      for a  period less  than a year, an      appointment to  such vacancy  shall      be made  on the recommendation of a      local      Selection      Committee      consisting of-      (A) The Dean of the Faculty;      (B) The Head of the Department; and      (C)  A   nominee   of   the   Vice-      Chancellor:      Provided that  if the  same  person      holds the  offices of  the Dean and      the Head  of  the  Department,  the      Selection Committee may contain two      nominees of the Vice-Chancellor:      Provided further  that in  case  of      sudden casual vacancies of teaching      post caused  by death  or any other      reason,   the    Dean,    may    in      consultation with  the Head  of the      Department   concerned,    make   a      temporary appointment  for a  month      and report  to the  Vice Chancellor      and  the   Registrar   about   such      appointment."      A  reading  of  Section  29  would  indicate  that  all appointments  to   permanent  posts   of  teachers   in  the University shall  be made  by the  Executive Council  on the recommendation of  the  Selection  Committee  in  accordance with the provisions of the statute. Such posts shall be duly advertised  and  the  candidates  concerned  would  have  an opportunity of  being interviewed by the Selection Committee except in cases where such Committee decides to consider the case of  a candidate  otherwise than  by an  interview.  The object thereby is that all the permanent vacancies should be filled  up   by  advertisement  giving  opportunity  to  all eligible persons  to claim  for selection  by the  Selection Committee in  regular process.  This Court  in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Chairman, BSRB & Ors. [(1996)1 SCC 283] laid down as

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

under:      "Article 14 read with Article 16(1)      of   the   Constitution   enshrines      fundamental right  to every citizen      to    claim    consideration    for      appointment to  the post  under the      State.   Therefore,   vacant   post      arising  or   expected  should   be      notified inviting applications from      all  eligible   candidates  to   be      considered for  their selection  in      accordance with  their  merit.  The      recruitment of  the  candidates  in      excess of the notified vacancies is      a denial  and  deprivation  of  the      constitutional right  under Article      14 read  with Article 16 (1) of the      Constitution.     The     procedure      adopted. therefore,  in  appointing      the persons kept in waiting list by      the respective  Boards, though  the      vacancies had  arisen  subsequently      without    being    notified    for      recruitment,  is  unconstitutional.      However,  since   the  appointments      have already been made and none was      impleaded, we  are not  inclined to      interfere   with    these   matters      adversely      affecting      their      appointments.  However,   hereafter      the respective  Board should notify      the existing and expected vacancies      and the  Recruitment  Board  should      get  advertisement   published  and      recruitment should strictly be made      by   the   respective   Boards   in      accordance with  the  procedure  to      the notified  vacancies but  not to      any vacancies  that my arise during      the process of selection."      It was  reiterated in  Union of  India v.  Ishwar Singh Khatri [1992  SCC (L  &  S)  999]  and  state  of  Bihar  v. Secretariat Assistants  Successful Examinees Union [AIR 1994 SC 736].  In the recent judgment of this court in Prem Singh & Ors.  v. Haryana State Elect. Board & Ors. [JT (1996) 5 SC 219], it  has been  held that the Selection Committee cannot make selection  for future  vacancies and fill up posts from the  reserve   list  of   candidates;  vacancies  should  be advertised and  selection should  be  duly  made  giving  an opportunity to  all the  candidates. In  Dr. Uma Kant’s case (supra) relied  upon by  the learned   counsel, the position was that  Section 6 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection  for Appointment) Act, 1974 itself gives power  to  prepare  a  select  list  of  50%  of  the  posts advertised so  that if  any candidate  selected does no join the post  after appointment,  the candidates  in the waiting list would  be appointed. The candidates in the waiting list would be  appointed. The  list shall  remain valid  for  six months. Therein,  Dr. Uma  Kant was No.1 in the wait list of candidates and when one of selected candidates did not join, he  came   to  be   appointed.  When   his  appointment  was challenged, the High Court had set aside the appointment and directed for  regular selection. This Court had reversed the view of  the High  Court holding  that since Section 6 gives that  power,   the  appointment  of  Dr.  Uma  Kant  was  in

5

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

accordance with the provisions of the Act and preparation of the select list of 50% of advertised posts was held valid in law. The  ratio therein  has no  application to the facts in this case.      It is  seen that Section 29 itself is a source of power for recruitment  and the  procedure  to  be  followed.  With regard to  even the  temporary vacancies  Section 29(2)  (a) itself gives  the procedure  as to  the manner  in which the temporary vacancies  are to  be filled  up by selection by a committee constituted  in that  behalf as envisaged therein. Thereby, the  Legislature has  given an indication of method through which  even the  temporary posts  could be filled up and the temporary appointments are regulated thereunder.      The  object   thereby  would   be  to   streamline  the expediency and  efficacy in  the selection  process so  that candidates  selected   should  know  their  rights  acquired thereunder. The  appointment of  temporary candidates  after keeping them  in the  posts for  long time unduly creates an expectation of confirmation which is later claimed; they are though belied of their right, many a time. It would generate unnecessary feeling  of denial  of right  to  equality  with others and  a source  of nepotism  to keep the candidates in the animated  expectation of  service for  obvious  reasons. Under these  circumstances, the  view taken  by the Division Bench  of   the  High   Court   is   perfectly   legal   and unexceptionable. It does not call for interference. Even the appointment subsequently  made were  in  the  teeth  of  the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High Court. We need not express any opinion on that since the same  has not been questioned,  but that  will not be taken as an instance of the  validity of  the  exercise  of  power  by  the  Vice Chancellor.      The Special  Leave Petition  is accordingly  dismissed. The University  is directed  to fill  up even  the temporary posts in  accordance with  the  procedure  prescribed  under Section 29  itself as  expeditiously as possible, preferably within a  period of  six months form the date of the receipt of this order.