Section 31(4) , Section 31(8) (a) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973, When there is a difference of opinions in appointment of a professor - the decision of the Chancellor is final =
appellant holds the prescribed and requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Professor in Physics. =
The Selection
Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the appellant’s
name for the aforesaid post to the Executive Council, Lucknow
University under Section 31(4) of the Act.
4. The Executive Council considered the recommendation of the
Selection Committee but did not agree with it and passed the
following recommendation:
“Resolved that the recommendation under reference be
referred, under Section 31(8) (a) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973, to H.E., The Chancellor, Lucknow
University for his decision because the lone candidate
recommended namely Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon does not have
research publications in the field of Experimental Solid
State Physics and as such she is not “actively engaged in
research” in this field of specialization; also she has
not taught the subject under reference at any stage so
far. Consequently, she has not fulfilled the minimum
qualification for the post of Professor as laid down in
Statute 11.02”.
5. Upon this, the Chancellor perused the record and held that the
appellant holds the prescribed and requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Professor in Physics. =
The appellant has challenged the order of the Allahabad High
Court, by which the High Court has set aside the order of the
Chancellor dated 13th March 2007 passed under Section 31(8)(a)
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Act’).
By the said order, the Chancellor had
approved the appointment of the appellant by holding that the
appellant possessed the prescribed and required qualification
for the post of Professor of Physics (Specialization in
Experimental Solid State).
The Chancellor had passed this
order on a reference made under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act.
The appellant was selected by the duly constituted Selection
Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow
University, three experts in the field of Physics appointed by
the Chancellor, the Head of Department, Physics, Lucknow
University, the Registrar, Lucknow University and two other
members as representatives of the SC/OBC.
The Selection
Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the appellant’s
name for the aforesaid post to the Executive Council, Lucknow
University under Section 31(4) of the Act. =
The reference was clearly
competent under Section 31 (8)(a) of the Act, which reads as
follows:
“In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University,
if the Executive Council does not agree with the
recommendation dame by the Selection Committee, the
Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor
along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his
decision shall be final.
[Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a
decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
within a period of four months from the date of the meeting
of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand
referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be
final”]
the appellant relied on a decision of
this in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others: (1990) 2 SCC
746. Our view is in consonance with the same.
There was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the
order of the Chancellor, which must be upheld. As a result, the
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The University Authorities
shall act in accordance with the decision of the Chancellor and shall
give effect to the directions issued by the Chancellor as contained in
the order dated 13th March, 2007.
The appeal is allowed.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10722 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3038 of 2008)
Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon ….
Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor, Lucknow University & Ors …. Respondents
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Allahabad High
Court, by which the High Court has set aside the order of the
Chancellor dated 13th March 2007 passed under Section 31(8)(a)
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Act’).
By the said order, the Chancellor had
approved the appointment of the appellant by holding that the
appellant possessed the prescribed and required qualification
for the post of Professor of Physics (Specialization in
Experimental Solid State).
The Chancellor had passed this
order on a reference made under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act.
3. The appellant was selected by the duly constituted Selection
Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow
University, three experts in the field of Physics appointed by
the Chancellor, the Head of Department, Physics, Lucknow
University, the Registrar, Lucknow University and two other
members as representatives of the SC/OBC.
The Selection
Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the appellant’s
name for the aforesaid post to the Executive Council, Lucknow
University under Section 31(4) of the Act.
4. The Executive Council considered the recommendation of the
Selection Committee but did not agree with it and passed the
following recommendation:
“Resolved that the recommendation under reference be
referred, under Section 31(8) (a) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973, to H.E., The Chancellor, Lucknow
University for his decision because the lone candidate
recommended namely Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon does not have
research publications in the field of Experimental Solid
State Physics and as such she is not “actively engaged in
research” in this field of specialization; also she has
not taught the subject under reference at any stage so
far. Consequently, she has not fulfilled the minimum
qualification for the post of Professor as laid down in
Statute 11.02”.
5. Upon this, the Chancellor perused the record and held that the
appellant holds the prescribed and requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Professor in Physics.
The
Chancellor observed that the candidate has been recommended by
the Selection Committee only after due consideration of
competence of the candidate in Experimental Solid State
Physics. The Chancellor, however, observed that the Executive
Committee ought to have been clear and specific in its
dissent.
6. The matter was carried to the High Court by two candidates who
were agreed by non-selection. The Division Bench of the High
Court held that since the Chancellor had observed that there
was no disagreement, which is a requirement of the Section and
therefore the reference under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act was
not a competent reference, the matter should have been
referred by to the Executive Committee for taking a fresh
decision. The High Court further held that the Chancellor
ought not to have answered the question of eligibility and
qualification of the respondent No.4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the orders of the Authorities. We find that
the order of the Chancellor was unexceptionable. The
Executive Council had by a majority referred the question
whether the appellant does has the requisite qualifications,
to the Chancellor for decision (supra). The Chancellor was
therefore bound to answer that question and in fact has done
so. The reasoning of the High Court that because the
Chancellor observed that the Executive Council had not
expressed clear and specific dissent about the qualification
and appointment of the appellant, the Chancellor could not
have entertained the reference and decided it, is wholly
untenable and contrary to law. The Chancellor had not
observed that there was no disagreement expressed by the
Executive Council for appointing the appellant but had only
observed that the disagreement had not been clearly specified.
This did not mean that the Chancellor had held the reference
to be incompetent. Indeed the resolution of the Executive
Council clearly referred the question of the appellant’s
qualification to the Chancellor and letter of the Executive
Council dated 19th October, 2006 clearly -states that the
Executive Council “did not agree” with the recommendation of
the Selection Committee and therefore had passed the
resolution referring the matter. The reference was clearly
competent under Section 31 (8)(a) of the Act, which reads as
follows:
“In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University,
if the Executive Council does not agree with the
recommendation dame by the Selection Committee, the
Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor
along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his
decision shall be final.
[Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a
decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
within a period of four months from the date of the meeting
of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand
referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be
final”]
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of
this in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others: (1990) 2 SCC
746. Our view is in consonance with the same.
9. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the
order of the Chancellor, which must be upheld. As a result, the
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The University Authorities
shall act in accordance with the decision of the Chancellor and shall
give effect to the directions issued by the Chancellor as contained in
the order dated 13th March, 2007.
10. The appeal is allowed.
11. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to
costs.
................………………..J.
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]
….....………………………J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
New Delhi,
November 28, 2013
Universities Act, 1973, When there is a difference of opinions in appointment of a professor - the decision of the Chancellor is final =
appellant holds the prescribed and requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Professor in Physics. =
The Selection
Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the appellant’s
name for the aforesaid post to the Executive Council, Lucknow
University under Section 31(4) of the Act.
4. The Executive Council considered the recommendation of the
Selection Committee but did not agree with it and passed the
following recommendation:
“Resolved that the recommendation under reference be
referred, under Section 31(8) (a) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973, to H.E., The Chancellor, Lucknow
University for his decision because the lone candidate
recommended namely Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon does not have
research publications in the field of Experimental Solid
State Physics and as such she is not “actively engaged in
research” in this field of specialization; also she has
not taught the subject under reference at any stage so
far. Consequently, she has not fulfilled the minimum
qualification for the post of Professor as laid down in
Statute 11.02”.
5. Upon this, the Chancellor perused the record and held that the
appellant holds the prescribed and requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Professor in Physics. =
The appellant has challenged the order of the Allahabad High
Court, by which the High Court has set aside the order of the
Chancellor dated 13th March 2007 passed under Section 31(8)(a)
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Act’).
By the said order, the Chancellor had
approved the appointment of the appellant by holding that the
appellant possessed the prescribed and required qualification
for the post of Professor of Physics (Specialization in
Experimental Solid State).
The Chancellor had passed this
order on a reference made under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act.
The appellant was selected by the duly constituted Selection
Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow
University, three experts in the field of Physics appointed by
the Chancellor, the Head of Department, Physics, Lucknow
University, the Registrar, Lucknow University and two other
members as representatives of the SC/OBC.
The Selection
Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the appellant’s
name for the aforesaid post to the Executive Council, Lucknow
University under Section 31(4) of the Act. =
The reference was clearly
competent under Section 31 (8)(a) of the Act, which reads as
follows:
“In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University,
if the Executive Council does not agree with the
recommendation dame by the Selection Committee, the
Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor
along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his
decision shall be final.
[Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a
decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
within a period of four months from the date of the meeting
of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand
referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be
final”]
the appellant relied on a decision of
this in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others: (1990) 2 SCC
746. Our view is in consonance with the same.
There was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the
order of the Chancellor, which must be upheld. As a result, the
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The University Authorities
shall act in accordance with the decision of the Chancellor and shall
give effect to the directions issued by the Chancellor as contained in
the order dated 13th March, 2007.
The appeal is allowed.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10722 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3038 of 2008)
Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon ….
Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor, Lucknow University & Ors …. Respondents
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Allahabad High
Court, by which the High Court has set aside the order of the
Chancellor dated 13th March 2007 passed under Section 31(8)(a)
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Act’).
By the said order, the Chancellor had
approved the appointment of the appellant by holding that the
appellant possessed the prescribed and required qualification
for the post of Professor of Physics (Specialization in
Experimental Solid State).
The Chancellor had passed this
order on a reference made under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act.
3. The appellant was selected by the duly constituted Selection
Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Lucknow
University, three experts in the field of Physics appointed by
the Chancellor, the Head of Department, Physics, Lucknow
University, the Registrar, Lucknow University and two other
members as representatives of the SC/OBC.
The Selection
Committee unanimously resolved to recommend the appellant’s
name for the aforesaid post to the Executive Council, Lucknow
University under Section 31(4) of the Act.
4. The Executive Council considered the recommendation of the
Selection Committee but did not agree with it and passed the
following recommendation:
“Resolved that the recommendation under reference be
referred, under Section 31(8) (a) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973, to H.E., The Chancellor, Lucknow
University for his decision because the lone candidate
recommended namely Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon does not have
research publications in the field of Experimental Solid
State Physics and as such she is not “actively engaged in
research” in this field of specialization; also she has
not taught the subject under reference at any stage so
far. Consequently, she has not fulfilled the minimum
qualification for the post of Professor as laid down in
Statute 11.02”.
5. Upon this, the Chancellor perused the record and held that the
appellant holds the prescribed and requisite qualifications
for appointment to the post of Professor in Physics.
The
Chancellor observed that the candidate has been recommended by
the Selection Committee only after due consideration of
competence of the candidate in Experimental Solid State
Physics. The Chancellor, however, observed that the Executive
Committee ought to have been clear and specific in its
dissent.
6. The matter was carried to the High Court by two candidates who
were agreed by non-selection. The Division Bench of the High
Court held that since the Chancellor had observed that there
was no disagreement, which is a requirement of the Section and
therefore the reference under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act was
not a competent reference, the matter should have been
referred by to the Executive Committee for taking a fresh
decision. The High Court further held that the Chancellor
ought not to have answered the question of eligibility and
qualification of the respondent No.4.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the orders of the Authorities. We find that
the order of the Chancellor was unexceptionable. The
Executive Council had by a majority referred the question
whether the appellant does has the requisite qualifications,
to the Chancellor for decision (supra). The Chancellor was
therefore bound to answer that question and in fact has done
so. The reasoning of the High Court that because the
Chancellor observed that the Executive Council had not
expressed clear and specific dissent about the qualification
and appointment of the appellant, the Chancellor could not
have entertained the reference and decided it, is wholly
untenable and contrary to law. The Chancellor had not
observed that there was no disagreement expressed by the
Executive Council for appointing the appellant but had only
observed that the disagreement had not been clearly specified.
This did not mean that the Chancellor had held the reference
to be incompetent. Indeed the resolution of the Executive
Council clearly referred the question of the appellant’s
qualification to the Chancellor and letter of the Executive
Council dated 19th October, 2006 clearly -states that the
Executive Council “did not agree” with the recommendation of
the Selection Committee and therefore had passed the
resolution referring the matter. The reference was clearly
competent under Section 31 (8)(a) of the Act, which reads as
follows:
“In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University,
if the Executive Council does not agree with the
recommendation dame by the Selection Committee, the
Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor
along with the reasons of such disagreement, and his
decision shall be final.
[Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a
decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee
within a period of four months from the date of the meeting
of such Committee, then also the matter shall stand
referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be
final”]
8. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of
this in Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others: (1990) 2 SCC
746. Our view is in consonance with the same.
9. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the
order of the Chancellor, which must be upheld. As a result, the
judgment of the High Court is set aside. The University Authorities
shall act in accordance with the decision of the Chancellor and shall
give effect to the directions issued by the Chancellor as contained in
the order dated 13th March, 2007.
10. The appeal is allowed.
11. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to
costs.
................………………..J.
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN]
….....………………………J.
[S.A. BOBDE]
New Delhi,
November 28, 2013
