http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SRI RAJ PAL VERMA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANCELLOR OF MEERUT UNIVERSITY(RENAMED CH. CHARAN SINGH UNI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  O R D E R      Leave granted.      Intervention application is dismissed.      Here is  aclassiccase ofdelay defeats justice".This appeal by  special  leave  arises  from the  order  of the Division Bench of the AllahabadHigh Court, made on November 28,  1994 in writ petition No. 38070/94.      Itis  notnecessary  to give  in detail all the facts. Sufficeit  to state  that pursuant  toan  advertisement on March 14,   1978  for selection to the post of  Professor, AncientHistory,  Mr. K.K.   Sharma,  the 3rd respondent had appliedfor  selection. While the selection  was to bemade by a  committeeconsisting of Vice-Chancellor,the dean and three experts  on the  subject,of whomone wasfrom outside the University and two from outside thestate were comprised therein. On  the day when the committeemet forselection of the teacher,  two of the experts  form outside the State did not attend  themeeting.  They appear to have acted upon the telegram sent  by the Vice-Chancellor asking them to abstain from the  selection panel.   The  Vic e-chancellor, theDean and thelocal experts Mr. K.K. Nizam from Aligarh University then selected  Mr. K.K. Sharma.  The ExecutiveCouncil, the appointing authority,  did not approve of the selection. Mr. K.K. Sharma wasqualified only in modern and medieval Indian historywhile  the candidate  was required to possess degree in Ancient  History.   Accordingly,  the matterwas referred underSection  31(8)  (a)of   the   U.P.  University Act, (10  of 1973) (forshort, the ’Act’) to the Chancellor. The Chancellor, finding that all the seats of the Executive councilwere  not filled  up, filled upfour vacant seats by nomination, instead  offollowing the due procedure andthen referred the  matter tothe Executive Council. The Executive Council approved  theselections  made  by  the  Selection committee and  pursuantthere  to, the third respondentcame to be  appointed in  March 1979as theProfessor in Ancient History.   The appointment  came to be challenged before the High court,   Several rounds oflitigations have since taken place. Ultimately, the  firstappellant  who is one of the professors,  challenged the  said  appointment,  as  stated earlier, on  diverse legal  grounds.   The  High  Court has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

dismissed the  matter in  limine.  Since  the  appellant  is appearing in  person, we  have requested  ShriD.D  Thakur, learnedseniorcounsel,  to  assist  the  Court.    He had graciously   accepted and  ablyassisted us.  We express our deep thanks forthe valuable assistancegiven  by him.      The  onlyquestion  is:  whetherthe  action  of the Chancellor in  filling up  the vacancies  by nomination and insteadof  following the  dueprocedure  remitting  g the matter to  the Executive  council for reconsideration of the matter is  valid in  law? In  other words,  could  he  alone decide it? Section 31(8)(a) reads as under:      "In the  case of  appointment of  a      teacher of the University,  if the      Executive Councildoes  not  agree      with the recommendation made by the      Selection     Committee.     The      Executive Councilshall refer  the      matter to the Chancellor along with      the reasons  of such disagreement t      and his decision shall be final.      InChapter5, appointment dealing with "applintment and condition of  service of teachers and officers",  undersub- section(1) of Section 31 it isprovided thus:      "Subject to  the provisions of this      Act, the teachers of the university      and the  teachers of an  affiliated      orassociate  college (other than a      college maintained exclusively  by      the  state  Government  shall   be      appointed by  the Executive Council      orthe Management of the affiliated      orassociated  college, asthe case      maybe, onthe recommendation  of a      selection committee  i   the manner      hereinafter provided.      The details  as to  the  constitution of the selection Committee and  manner of  selection arenot material for the purposeof thiscase.  Section 31 (8)(a) postulates that i n the case  of  appointment of a teacher of the university, if the  Executive Council  does    not  agree  with the recommendationmade   by  the Selection  Committee, the Executive Council shallrefer,the matter to the Chancellor along with the reason of such disagreement, andhis decision thereonshall  be final.   Theprovisois not necessary for the purpose of this case, henceomitted.  The contention  of Shri D.D. Thakur is that since the statute attaches finality to the decisionof the Chancellor in the matterof selection Committee  andthere  Executive  Council,  the appropriate authority to  decide the  legality of selectionand approval of the selection would be the Chancellor.  Therefore, he has no power,  by necessaryimplication,  to remit the matter to the Executive  council for  reconsideration.   He alone can decide it.  TheChancellor has derelicted in the performance of thestatutory dutywhich is  in  violation of  Section 31(8)(a) of theAct. Though plausible,we findit difficult to give acceptance to the s aid contention. Itis seenthat when there  is a difference of opinion on the selectionof a teacher of   the  Universityor  affiliatedcollege for appointment asa    professor of Lecturer,  asthe case may be,   between the  Selection  Committee and  the  Executive Councilwhich  is the appointing authority, thematter shall be  referred  to  The  Chancellor.    The  Chancellor  shall consider the  reasons given by the Executive Council for its disagreement with  the Selection  Committee and then he  is entitled to  take a  decision in an appropriatemanner.  He

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

should articulate his major premise by a reasoned order.  In case the  Chancellor feels  that some material circumstances have not  been considered  by the executive committee or the same escaped  their attention,insteadof  himself taking a decision, he  may remit the matter to the Executive Council to reconsider  the matter  in terms of his guidance, and may also express  his opinion  fro such  a course of action.  He may also  himself take a decision in which event it shall be final. In the later case,   the  Executive Council,  on remittance andfresh consideration  may still disapprove of the selection. In  case   theExecutive  council expresses opinionthereafter,  the Chancellor is entitledto take his own decision.The  decision then  shall be  final and,  of course,  subject to  judicial review  and theintermediary action of  remittance taken  bythe Chancellor is not final. Under these  circumstances,   we hold,on principle,that there  is   noinfirmity  in  the  decision  taken  by the Chancellor in  remitting the matter to the Executive Council for reconsideration.  It is  true thatthe  Chancellor has reconstituted the  committee  by  nomination, instead  of following the  due procedure  prescribed underthe Act and loaded in  favour of  Mr.  Sharma whichmay be open to grave doubt on  the proprietyof the course of actiontaken by the Chancellor.   Though,  prima facie, we are in agreementwith Shri D.D.  Thakur, in view of the long lapse oftime,  it is not necessary to recordany finding in this regard.      Hethen  contends that theentire operation success was done behind  the  screen  by  Mr.  B.C. Sharma,  the  Vice- Chancellor to benefit the thirdrespondent,  Mr. K.K. Sharma and, therefore, it isvitiated by  mala fides. He contends that  till   the  last date  prescribed   tosubmit the application, K.K.  Sharma did  not have PH.D. degree.  To facilitate him, the Vice-chancellor  extended the lastdate of he  application so  as to  enable the third respondent to become eligible to submit  theapplication  for  selection. This is not disputed. He prevented the outside experts to participate in the selection bysendingtelegrams requesting No.3 was not qualified. Thus, the respondent No. came to be selected. It  is but  astage-managed  affair due  to  caste consideration.      Itis  very unfortunate  and sad to noticethat centres of learning  ofyesteryears have become casteinfected and caste cust  oriented clusters and the autonomy of management is  given   tothem  sanctioning  power  gives impetus  to camouflage the blatant conduct generating deleterious effect on true and  congenial atmosphere,honestlearned and secularoutlook for  future  education politicisation and division of  staff on  caste lines  is anotherdebilitating factor which  need urgent attention forremedy,teachers are at thereceiving end  and arediscouraged anddemoralised. Honest and   effective performance of the duties in teaching and inthe managementof theUniversities is sagging and disappearing  Centres  of  learning  meant  toprepare the students with  broad,enlightening and  secular  breed  to improveexcellence,  higher learning,  rationalthinking and scientific  temper   with  objectively and  fairness, are breading  with narrow  minded   and cynical   attitude. Objectivity and secular outlook  wouldbe  brought back  on board only whenteacherbecomesGuru and servesas GuruDevo Bhave but  not as castedemon.The true teacher scintilates the  young   receptiveminds  with  scientific though and rational and  thinking and  makes him progressive minded man to  occupy   any  hosen faculty,  profession,  avocation, serviceto serve the society with prideof his almam mater.      The third respondent came to be appointed as late as in

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

March 1979 and 18 yearshave passed andwe are informedthat he is  no the  verge ofretirement nextyear.  Though he was not qualified  for appointmentat thefirst instance as he did not possesthe  Ph.D. degree  in Ancient  History, the subject  tobe   taught,nonetheless,since the time has  run out,  we decline to disturb the appointment of the  third   respondent the   observation  that   there  is deterioration of  standards ofrectitudes in  management of higher educational  institutionwith  the fond hope that the Executive wouldlook into and meander the malady and restore the lost  gloryof the educational institutions.  University is thecentre of  learning and there students look to the teacheras realGuru Devo Bhavawith all respect,  reverence in theheart, as  thetrue  guide,  mentor, frient and philospher.   Before  parting  with  the  matter,    we are inclined to  place on record our appreciation for theregood cause espoused by the appellantas public as public interest litigant.      Thus, we  are constrainedto dismiss  the appeal.  No costs.