advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, April 7, 2014

Service matter - irregular appointments - termination of all appointments on enquiry - High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. We however direct that the University-respondent shall take necessary steps for constituting the Selection Board in terms of Section 58 of the Act as amended by Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2013 and advertise the vacancies currently available, together with the posts that are presently held by the appellants for recruitment in accordance with the procedure that may be prescribed in accordance with law. The entire process shall be completed by the University within six months. The appellants shall also be allowed toapply and participate in the selection process against the vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for such recruitment. For a period of six months or till the process of selection and appointment based on the selection process is completed by the respondent, whichever is earlier, the appellants shall be allowed to continue in service on the same terms as are currently applicable to them. In case any one of the appellants is selected by the new selection process, he shall be granted benefit of continuity of service. But such of the appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on completion of the period of six months hereby granted. No costs.= Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh & Ors. …Appellants Versus Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. & Ors. …Respondents= 2014 ( Apr.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41387

Service matter - irregular appointments - termination of all appointments on enquiry - High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed  but  in  the circumstances without any order as to costs.  We  however  direct  that  the
University-respondent  shall  take  necessary  steps  for  constituting  the Selection Board in terms of Section 58 of the Act as amended by  Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2013  and  advertise  the  vacancies  currently  available, together with the posts that  are  presently  held  by  the  appellants  for recruitment in accordance with the procedure   that  may  be  prescribed  in
accordance  with  law.   The  entire  process  shall  be  completed  by  the University within six months.  The  appellants  shall  also  be  allowed  to apply and participate in the selection  process  against  the  vacancies  so advertised in  relaxation  of  the  upper  age  limit  prescribed  for  such recruitment.   For a period of six months  or till the process of  selection and  appointment  based  on  the  selection  process  is  completed  by  the respondent, whichever  is  earlier,  the  appellants  shall  be  allowed  to continue in service on the same terms as are currently applicable  to  them. In case any one of the appellants is selected by the new selection  process,
he shall be granted benefit of continuity  of  service.   But  such  of  the appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for  the posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service  on  completion of the period of six months hereby granted. No costs.=

 Appointments  based  on  the  selection  conducted  by  the
Selection Committee concerned were all the same made  for  as  many  as  131
posts out of which 76 appointments were made against  the  posts  of  Senior
Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the cadre  of  Junior
Research Assistants.  It is common ground that  the  selection  process  was
based on a total weightage of 100 marks for each candidate out of  which  40
marks were reserved for  educational  qualification  of  the  candidate  and
his/her  experience while the remaining 60 marks were set  apart  for  viva-
voce examination.=
An affidavit has  in  that  regard  been  filed  by  the  Shri
Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar of  the  respondent-University  stating
that in terms of Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of  2013  the  Maharashtra  State
legislature  has  amended  Maharashtra  Agricultural  Universities   (Krishi
Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983.  Section 58 of the principal Act as  substituted  by
Act XXXII aforementioned provides that no person shall be appointed  by  the
University as a member of the academic staff, except on  the  recommendation
of a Selection Board constituted for the  purpose  in  accordance  with  the
provisions of the Statutes made in that behalf.  The posts of SRAs and  JRAs
are classified as academic as per Statute 71 of the MAU statutes 1990.   The
process of amendment to  the  statute  75  and  76  is  now  underway.   The
affidavit further states that the University will not be in  a  position  to
undertake the selection process of posts advertised on 23rd March  2012  and
that selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per  the  new  selection
procedure.  The affidavit is, however,  silent  as  to  the  procedure  that
shall be followed by the Selection Board constituted  for  the  purpose.  Be
that as it may the establishment of a Selection  Board  and  formulation  of
proper procedure to be followed by the Board will go a long  way  in  making
the process of selection and  recruitment  objective,  fair  and  reasonable
apart from bringing transparency to the norms and the process by which  such
recruitments were made.  
We only hope  that  the  process  of  amendment  of
relevant statute is expedited by the University  and  concluded  as  far  as
possible within six months from today and process of filling up of posts  of
SRAs and JRAs  currently  held  by  the  petitioners  and  those  that  were
advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23rd  March  2012  undertaken  in
accordance with such procedure.

26.   In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed  but  in  the
circumstances without any order as to costs.  
We  however  direct  that  the
University-respondent  shall  take  necessary  steps  for  constituting  the
Selection Board in terms of Section 58 of the Act as amended by  Maharashtra
Act No. XXXII of 2013  and  advertise  the  vacancies  currently  available,
together with the posts that  are  presently  held  by  the  appellants  for
recruitment in accordance with the procedure   that  may  be  prescribed  in
accordance  with  law.   
The  entire  process  shall  be  completed  by  the
University within six months.  
The  appellants  shall  also  be  allowed  to
apply and participate in the selection  process  against  the  vacancies  so
advertised in  relaxation  of  the  upper  age  limit  prescribed  for  such
recruitment.   
For a period of six months  or till the process of  selection
and  appointment  based  on  the  selection  process  is  completed  by  the
respondent, whichever  is  earlier,  the  appellants  shall  be  allowed  to
continue in service on the same terms as are currently applicable  to  them.

In case any one of the appellants is selected by the new selection  process,
he shall be granted benefit of continuity  of  service.   
But  such  of  the
appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for  the
posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service  on  completion
of the period of six months hereby granted. No costs.

      2014 ( Apr.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41387
T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN
                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4412  OF 2014
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27082 of 2012)


Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh & Ors.    …Appellants

           Versus

Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. & Ors.        …Respondents


                                    With

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4413  OF 2014
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28373 of 2012)

Pramodini Ambadas Lad                        …Appellant

           Versus

Chancellor Dr. P.D.K. Vidyapeeth & Ors.      …Respondents

                                    With

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4414  OF 2014
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28399 of 2012)


Parikshit Vinayak Shingrup & Ors.            …Appellants

           Versus

Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth
& Ors.                                             …Respondents

                                    With

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4415   OF 2014
                (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28437 of 2012)

Prashant Dinkarrao Peshattiwar & Ors.        …Appellants

           Versus

Chancellor Dr. P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors.  …Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    These appeals arise out of a common  Judgment  and  Order  dated  16th
August, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur  Bench
whereby writ petitions No.238, 247,  251  and  389  of  2012  filed  by  the
appellants, herein, have  been  dismissed  and  the  orders  passed  by  the
respondents terminating their services affirmed.

3.    Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh  Krishi  Vidyapeeth  invited  applications  for
appointment against 24 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Research  Assistants
and 37 vacancies in the cadre of Junior Research  Assistants.   As  many  as
3214 applications were received from eligible candidates  against  61  posts
so advertised.   Appointments  based  on  the  selection  conducted  by  the
Selection Committee concerned were all the same made  for  as  many  as  131
posts out of which 76 appointments were made against  the  posts  of  Senior
Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the cadre  of  Junior
Research Assistants.  It is common ground that  the  selection  process  was
based on a total weightage of 100 marks for each candidate out of  which  40
marks were reserved for  educational  qualification  of  the  candidate  and
his/her  experience while the remaining 60 marks were set  apart  for  viva-
voce examination.

4.    Several complaints appear to have  been  made  against  the  selection
process and the resultant appointments made  by  the  University.   Some  of
these complaints were in the form of writ petitions filed  before  the  High
Court  of  Bombay  at  Nagpur  while  some  others  were  addressed  to  His
Excellency, the Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor  of
the University.  Out of the writ petitions filed against the  selection  and
appointment process, Writ Petition No.4771 of 2006 inter alia prayed  for  a
direction to the Chancellor to institute an inquiry under Section 11 of  the
Maharashtra  Agriculture  Universities  (Krishi  Vidyapeeth)  Act,  1983  in
regard to the illegalities and irregularities  committed  in  the  selection
and consequent appointments against the vacancies referred to above.  By  an
Order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High Court in the said  petition,
the Chancellor was directed to take a decision in the matter  on  or  before
the 14th August, 2007.   Two  other  writ  petitions  were  similarly  filed
before the High Court of Nagpur challenging the  selection  and  appointment
process.  In writ petition No.342 of 2006 filed  by  Shri  H.S.  Bache,  the
High Court passed an interim order to the effect that the selection  of  the
candidates shall remain stayed subject to the further orders of  the  Court.
Writ Petition No.905 of  2006  filed  by  Archana  Bipte  and  another  also
assailed the validity of the selection and  appointment  process  undertaken
by the University on several grounds.

5.    It was in the above backdrop that the Chancellor  invoked  his  powers
under Section 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities Act,  1983
and appointed Mr. Justice H.W.Dhabe, a former Judge of  the  High  Court  of
Bombay to examine the papers relating to the selection  and  appointment  of
the candidates concerned against the posts referred to above and  to  submit
a report to the Chancellor as to  the  fairness  of  the  selection  of  the
candidates appointed by the University.  A reading of the  order  passed  by
the Chancellor would show that apart from several allegations  made  by  Dr.
B.G. Bhathakal, Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University and  four  others,  the
Chancellor had before him, a report dated 8th November,  2006  submitted  by
the Director General MCAER Pune from which the  Chancellor  noticed  several
irregularities allegedly committed in  the  process  of  selection  such  as
violation of Statute 52, holding of common interviews for  both  Senior  and
Junior Research  Assistants,  appointing  meritorious  candidates  from  the
reserved category seats  instead  of  appointing  them  in  the  open  merit
category, selection of as many as 22 relatives of officers/employees of  the
University, absence of any  short-listing  of  candidates  for  purposes  of
interview even when the applications were far in excess  of  the  advertised
vacancies. There were also allegations of the selection  process  not  being
transparent apart  from  allegations  to  the  effect  that  the  norms  for
academic evaluation and viva voce examination had been flouted.

6.    With the constitution of the Justice Dhabe’s Committee  writ  petition
No.4771 of 2006  titled  Dr.Balwant  and  Anr.  versus  His  Excellency  the
Chancellor of Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh  Krishi  Vidyapeet  &  Ors.   and   writ
Petition No.905 of 2006 titled Ms. Archana and Anr. V. State and  Ors.  were
both disposed of with the  observation  that  Justice  Dhabe  Committee  was
constituted to examine the complaints  made  by  the  writ  petitioners  and
connected issues was expected to submit its report to the Chancellor  making
it unnecessary for the Court to undertake any  such  exercise  in  the  said
petitions.

7.    Proceedings before Justice Dhabe Committee started with the  issue  of
notices to those appointed informing them about  the  establishment  of  the
Committee to inquire into the fairness of the selection process and  calling
upon them to appear in person before the Committee and  to  file  affidavits
and documents, if any, to justify their selection and  appointment.   It  is
not  in  dispute  that  the  appellants  received  the  said   notices   and
acknowledged the same by filing their respective affidavits. The  appellants
were in the meantime informed by the  University  that  they  had  completed
their period of probation satisfactorily but the declaration to that  effect
was to remain subject to the outcome of writ petitions No.342  of  2006  and
4771 of 2006.

8.    Justice Dhabe Committee took nearly 3½ years to complete  the  inquiry
and to submit its report to the Chancellor in which the  entire  process  of
selection and  appointment  came  under  severe  criticism  questioning  the
fairness of the selection process and the resultant appointments.  The  High
Court has summed up the substance of the findings  and  conclusions  arrived
at by Justice Dhabe in the following words:

     1) As large numbers of candidates were called for  interview,  without
        following proper ratio as prescribed by the  State  government,  it
        has led to selection of undeserving and less meritorious candidates
        by manipulation, favouritism and other malpractices etc.

     2) Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to two  separate  cadres
        with different pay scales, different qualifications and duties  and
        responsibilities, the Selection Committee  held  common  interviews
        for the said posts and vitiated the selection of the candidates  as
        their suitability could not  have  been  properly  judged  in  such
        interviews for the said posts.

     3) The criteria for assessment of the  candidates  for  the  posts  of
        SRA/JRA were illegal.

     4)  The  Selection  Committee  has  awarded  marks  for  Ph.D.  Thesis
        submitted,   research   papers/popular   articles   published   and
        significant contribution made after the last  date  of  application
        i.e. 15.09.2004 by resorting to illegal marking system.

     5) The Selection Committee gave higher weightage to the performance in
        interview as compared to academic performance.

     6) The procedure followed by  the  Selection  Committee  for  awarding
        marks to the candidates for academic performance and performance in
        interview was illegal and invalid.

     7)  There was tinkering in mark seats of the candidates.  In  some  of
        the cases the mark sheets were not prepared in the meeting  of  the
        Selection Committee and they were also not placed before any of its
        meeting for its consideration and approval.

     8) The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee on
        their own without any authority or  power  in  them  increased  the
        number of posts of SRA and JRA to be filled in.

     9) Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and 76 posts  of  JRA
        was not made according to the prescribed percentage for each of the
        backward classes and open category as per the relevant GRs.

    10) The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA were not  prepared
        or  considered  and  approved  in  the  meeting  of  the  Selection
        Committee.  There  were  lacunae,  deficiencies,  illegalities  and
        irregularities in preparation of the selection list.

    11) Though in the advertisement it was specifically provided  for  wait
        lists to be prepared for the near future vacancies, no  wait  lists
        were prepared by the Selection Committee.

    12) The Selection Committee did not discharge any  of  its  duties  and
        responsibilities in the selection process.

    13) The entire selection process and selection of  candidates  pursuant
        thereto for the posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated  by  bias  of  Dr.
        V.D. Patil, Chairman of the Selection Committee.

    14) As per the findings of Justice Dhabe, favouritism has  occurred  in
        the process of selection to the posts of SRA and JRA

    15) The qualification of Bachelor’s degree in  Agriculture  Engineering
        was introduced as an additional qualification for the post  of  JRA
        as per the addendum dated 06.09.2004  to  the  advertisement  dated
        14.08.2004 in which the posts  of  JRA  were  advertised  with  the
        qualification of Bachelor’s degree in Agriculture.

    16) Preparation of the minutes of various  meetings  of  the  Selection
        Committee were not recorded faithfully and confirmed by  its  other
        members.  The proceedings/minutes of the meetings of the  Selection
        Committee were probably prepared after the appointment orders  were
        issued on 16.09.2005 and 17.09.2005.

    17) There were more than 2 months delay in handing over  the  Selection
        lists to the then Vice Chancellor.  The reasons given by  the  then
        Vice Chancellor for the delay in not receiving the selection  lists
        towards the end of June or July 2005 are not convincing.

    18) The Reservation policy of the Government was not  followed  by  the
        University.   Reservations  of  the  posts  for  backward   classes
        (social/ vertical reservation) were not  made  according  to  their
        prescribed percentage  as  per  the  relevant  GRs.  of  the  State
        Government.

    19) The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University
        were not considered in the University for appointment and promotion
        in the post of JRA.

    20) There were illegalities, flaws and consequential reshuffling of the
        Selection  Lists  and  other  infirmities  in  preparation  of  the
        existing selection lists of these posts of SRA and JRA.  Thus,  the
        appointments made in the posts of SRA and JRA are highly irregular.

    21) The routine procedures for making appointment in the university was
        not followed in the appointments made to the posts of SRA and  JRA.
        In the report it is concluded that the entire selection process and
        selection of the candidates to the posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated
        by the illegalities, irregularities and improprieties and therefore
        the appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set aside.



9.    On receipt of the report from Justice Dhabe Committee  the  Chancellor
directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to place  the  matter  before
the Executive Council for its opinion.  The matter  was  accordingly  placed
before the Executive Council of the University on 14th  February  2011.  The
Council while  accepting  the  findings  recorded  by  the  Dhabe  Committee
recommended that  a  lenient  view  be  taken  by  the  Chancellor  and  the
appointments already made protected having regard to  the  fact  that  those
appointed had already served the University for over six  years  during  the
interregnum.  The petitioners also appear to have made a  representation  to
the Chancellor in which they once again  asserted  that  their  appointments
had been properly made on the basis of their merit and that the  termination
of their services after more than six years will  be  grossly  unfair.   The
Chancellor,  however,  felt  that  Justice  Dhabe  Committee  had   reported
illegalities and irregularities in the procedure adopted  by  the  Selection
Committee which findings having been accepted by the Executive Council  left
no  room  for  any  leniency  in  the  case,  considering  the  gravity  and
seriousness of the matter.  The Chancellor found that the entire process  of
selection of candidates and their appointments  stood  vitiated  because  of
such  irregularities.   Directions  were  accordingly  issued  to  the  Vice
Chancellor to initiate action to cancel the appointments of  the  candidates
concerned after following the procedure prescribed by law  and  to  fix  the
responsibility of those who had committed lapses in the matter of  selection
of the candidates and take disciplinary action against  them  including  the
Chairman of the Selection  Committee  and  the  then  Registrar  and  Member
Secretary of the said Committee. The Chancellor further  directed  the  Vice
Chancellor to consider the suggestions made by Justice  Dhabe  Committee  in
order to avoid recurrence of such illegalities and irregularities in  future
recruitments.

10.   In obedience to the directions issued by the Chancellor,  disciplinary
action  appears  to  have  been  initiated  against  those  comprising   the
Selection Committee in which  the  officials  are  accused  of  having  made
illegal selection of 131 candidates including the  petitioners  thereby  not
only causing financial loss to the University but  also  bringing  disrepute
to it.  We are in the present appeals not concerned with  the  fate  of  the
said proceedings which appear  to  be  lingering  on  even  at  present.  As
regards the petitioners, they were  served  notices  calling  upon  them  to
appear before the Vice Chancellor  for  a  personal  hearing  against  their
selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs in the  University.   It  is  not  in
dispute that the petitioners in  reply  to  the  said  notices  filed  their
respective responses before the Vice Chancellor and were heard on  different
dates mentioned in the communications received by them.  It is also  not  in
dispute that the petitioners  submitted  their  representations  before  the
Vice Chancellor in writing in which  they  stated  that  their  appointments
were regular and legally sound apart from relying upon the  fact  that  they
had served the University for nearly six years  thereby  entitling  them  to
protection against ouster on equitable grounds.  The  Vice  Chancellor  then
reported the result of the hearing provided by him  to  the  petitioners  by
his letter dated 1st November 2011.  Consideration of  the  report  received
from the Vice Chancellor, the opinion offered by the  Executive  Council  of
the University and the entire material including  the  report  submitted  by
Justice Dhabe Committee  led  the  Chancellor  to  pass  an  order  on  16th
December 2011 in which the  Chancellor  held  that  the  entire  process  of
selection  and  appointment  having  lost  its  sanctity   on   account   of
irregularities in  the  same  could  not  be  approved  or  rectified.   The
Chancellor felt that a lenient view on humanitarian grounds alone  would  be
against the principles of governance  and  fair  selection  process  in  the
matter of recruitment. He accordingly turned down the recommendation of  the
Vice Chancellor that out of 83 SRAs and JRAs,  selection  of  65  candidates
could be saved as valid while remaining 18 could  be  ousted.   He  directed
that Justice Dhabe Committee Report did not leave  any  room  for  the  Vice
Chancellor to  strike  a  discordant  note  or  sit  in  judgment  over  the
conclusions drawn by the Committee.  The  Chancellor  accordingly  cancelled
the appointments of 83 candidates of SRAs and JRAs  who  had  been  selected
and taken into the service of the University  on  the  basis  of  a  process
which the Chancellor found was vitiated and void ab initio.

11.   In compliance with the directions issued by the  Chancellor  the  Vice
Chancellor issued individual orders in each case  terminating  the  services
of the appointees concerned.  Aggrieved by the said orders  the  petitioners
filed Writ Petition Nos. 238/12, 389/12, 247/12 and 251/12 before  the  High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench which petitions  have  now  been
dismissed by the said Court in terms of the common order impugned  in  these
appeals.

12.   We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at  length.  The
following questions arise for our consideration:

 1)   Was the Chancellor competent to appoint  a  Single  Member  Committee
      headed  by  Justice  H.W.   Dhabe   to   examine   the   illegalities,
      irregularities, fairness and impropriety of the selection process  and
      consequent appointments to the cadre of SRAs and JRAs?

 2)   Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted  to  Justice  Dhabe  Committee
      conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

 3)   Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee in  any  manner
      illegal or perverse to warrant interference with the same  by  a  Writ
      Court?

 4)   Was the procedure adopted by the University and the  Vice  Chancellor
      fair and reasonable and in consonance with the principles  of  natural
      justice?

 5)   Was the Chancellor of the respondent-University and  the  High  Court
      justified in declining the prayer of the petitioners  for  continuance
      in service on account of the  time  lag  between  the  date  of  their
      appointments and the date on which their services were terminated?

      We shall deal with the question ad seriatim.



Reg. Question No. 1

13.   Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths)  Act,  1983
was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating  to  the  agricultural
universities in the State  of  Maharashtra.  The  legislation  provides  for
better governance, more efficient administration and  financial  control  of
the Universities and for  better  organisation  of  teaching,  research  and
extension education  therein  apart  from  providing  better  facilities  in
agricultural and  allied  matters  in  particular  for  the  development  of
agricultural sciences which is one of the prime objects underlying the  Act.
 Chapter II of the Act comprises Sections 3 to 11.  Section  4  of  the  Act
states  that  each  University  shall  be  deemed  to  be  established   and
incorporated for the purposes enumerated therein. The purposes mentioned  in
the said provision includes education in agriculture in allied sciences  and
in humanities besides furthering the advancement of  learning  and  research
in agriculture, undertaking  and  guiding  extension  education  programmes;
integrating and coordinating the  teaching  of  subjects  in  the  different
faculties,  coordinating  agricultural  education,  research  and  extension
education  activities,  teaching  and  examining  students  and   conferring
degrees and diplomas.  Section 6 of  the  Act  deals  with  the  powers  and
functions of the Universities.  It inter alia provides that each  University
shall have the powers and functions enumerated under the said provision,  in
particular  the  power  to  institute  teaching,  research   and   extension
education posts required by the University and to appoint  persons  to  such
posts.  Sub-section (x) to Section  6  is  in  this  regard  relevant  which
reads:

           “to institute teaching, research and extension  education  posts
           required by the  University  and  to  appoint  persons  to  such
           posts.”



14.   Section 11 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to cause  an  inspection
and inquiry on matters stipulated therein.  We  may  gainfully  extract  the
said provision in extenso as the  power  of  the  Chancellor  to  direct  an
inquiry into the  validity  of  the  selection  and  appointments  has  been
questioned before us in these appeals.  Section 11 reads as under:

          “SECTION 11: Chancellor to cause inspection and inquiry on various
          matters:

              1) The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an  inspection
                 to be made, by such person or persons or body  of  persons,
                 as he may direct, of any University,, its buildings, farms,
                 laboratories, libraries, museums, workshops and  equipments
                 of  any  college,   institution   or   hostel   maintained,
                 administered or recognised by the  University  and  of  the
                 teaching and other work conducted by or on  behalf  of  the
                 University or under its auspices of and of the  conduct  of
                 examinations or other functions of the University,  and  to
                 cause to inquiry to be made in like  manner  regarding  any
                 matter connected with the administration or finances of the
                 University.

            2) The Chancellor shall, in every case, give due notice to  the
               University of  his  intention  to  cause  an  inspection  or
               inquiry to be made, and the University shall be entitled  to
               appoint a representative, who  all  have  the  right  to  be
               present and to be heard at the inspection or inquiry.

           (3)  After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to be  made,
               the Chancellor may address the Vice-Chancellor on the result
               of such inspection or inquiry and the Vice-Chancellor shall;
               communicate to  the  Executive  Council  the  views  of  the
               Chancellor  and  call  upon   the   Executive   Council   to
               communicate  to  the  Chancellor  through  him  its  opinion
               thereon within such time as may have been specified  by  the
               Chancellor.  If  the  Executive  Council  communicates,  its
               opinion within the specified time limit, after  taking  into
               consideration that opinion, or where the  Executive  Council
               fails  to  communicate  its  opinion  in  time,  after   the
               specified time limit is over, the Chancellor may proceed and
               advise the Executive Council upon the action to be taken  by
               it, and fix a time limit for taking such action

           (4) The Executive Council shall, within the time limit so fixed,
               report to the Chancellor  through  the  Vice-Chancellor  the
               action which has been taken or is proposed to  be  taken  on
               the advice tendered by him.

           (5)   The Chancellor may, where action has not been taken by the
                Executive Council to his  satisfaction  with  in  the  time
                limit  fixed,  and  after   considering   any   explanation
                furnished or representation made by the Executive  Council,
                issue such direction, as the Chancellor may think fit,  and
                the Executive Council and other authority  concerned  shall
                comply with such directions.

           (6) Notwithstanding anything contained  in  the  preceding  sub-
                section if at any time the Chancellor  is  of  the  opinion
                that in any matter the affairs of the  University  are  not
                managed in furtherance of the objects of the University  or
                in accordance with the  provisions  of  this  Act  and  the
                statutes  and  Regulation  or  that  special  measures  are
                desirable to maintain the standards of University teaching,
                examinations, research, extension education, administration
                or finances, the Chancellor may indicate to  the  Executive
                Council through the Vice-Chancellor any matter in regard to
                which he desires an explanation and call upon the Executive
                Council to offer such explanation within such time  as  may
                be specified by him. If  the  Executive  Council  fails  to
                offer any explanation within the time specified  or  offers
                an explanation which, in the opinion of the  Chancellor  is
                not satisfactory , the Chancellor may issue such directions
                as appear to him  to  be  necessary  ,  and  the  Executive
                Council and other authority  concerned  shall  comply  with
                such directions.

           (7)  The  Executive  Council  shall  furnish  such   information
                relating  to  the  administration  and  finances   of   the
                University as the Chancellor may from time to time require.

           (8) The Executive Council shall furnish to the State  Government
                such returns or  other  information  with  respect  to  the
                property or activities  of  the  University  as  the  State
                government may from time to time require“.

                                                      (emphasis   supplied)



15.   A careful reading of the above would leave no  manner  of  doubt  that
the Chancellor is vested with the power to cause an inspection  to  be  made
by such person or persons as he may direct of any University, its  building,
farms,  laboratories,  libraries  etc.  or  of  hostels   administered   and
recognised  by  the  University  or  of  the  teaching  or  other  workshops
conducted on behalf of the University or  any  conduct  of  examinations  or
other functions  of  the  University.     The  inspection  so  directed  is,
however,  distinct  from  the  inquiry  which  the  Chancellor  may   direct
regarding any matter connected with the administration  or  finance  of  the
University.  The expression ‘administration or finance’  of  the  University
are in our opinion, wide enough to include an inquiry into any  matter  that
falls under Section 6(x) (supra).  If creation  of  teaching,  research  and
education posts required by the University is one of the  functions  of  the
University and if appointment of suitable  persons  against  such  posts  is
also one of such functions,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  power  of  the
Chancellor to direct an inquiry under Section 11(1)  should  not  extend  to
any process leading to such appointments. The term  ‘administration  of  the
University’ appearing in sub-Section 1 of Section 11 would, in our  opinion,
include every such  activity  as  is  relatable  to  the  functions  of  the
University, under Section 6.  Selection of persons suitable for  appointment
and appointments of such persons would logically fall within the  expression
“administration of the University” within the meaning of  Section  11(1)  of
the Act.  We have, therefore, no hesitation  in  holding  that  the  inquiry
directed by the Chancellor into the illegalities and irregularities  of  the
selection process culminating  in  the  appointment  of  Senior  and  Junior
Research Assistants was  legally  permissible.   The  power  vested  in  the
Chancellor under Section 11 to direct  an  inspection  or  an  inquiry  into
matters referred to in the said  provision  is  very  broad  and  vests  the
Chancellor with  the  authority  to  direct  an  inspection  or  an  inquiry
whenever warranted in the facts and circumstances in a given case.   We  may
also refer to Section 15 of the Act whereunder the Governor  of  Maharashtra
is ex-officio Head of each of the  Universities  who  shall,  when  present,
preside at any convocation of the University.  Section 15 reads:

           “(1) The Governor of Maharashtra, shall  be  the  Chancellor  of
           each of the Universities.

           (2) The Chancellor shall, by virtue of his office, be  the  head
           of the University  and  shall,  when  present,  preside  at  any
           convocation of the University.

           (3) The Chancellor may  call  for  his  information  any  papers
           relating to the administration of the affairs of the  University
           and such requisition shall be complied with by the University.

           (4) Every proposal  to  confer  any  honorary  degree  shall  be
           subject to confirmation by the Chancellor.

           (5)The Chancellor may, by order in writing, annul any proceeding
           of any officer or authority of the University, which is  not  in
           conformity with this Act, the Statutes or  the  Regulations,  or
           which is prejudicial to the interest of the University;

           Provided that, before making any such order, he shall call  upon
           the officer or authority to show cause why such an order  should
           not be made, and if any cause is shown within the time specified
           by him in this behalf, he shall consider the same.

           (6) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and  perform
           such other duties as are laid down by this Act.”

                                        (emphasis supplied)




16.   A plain reading of the above  shows  that  apart  from  being  the  ex
officio Head of the University, the statute specifically  confers  upon  the
Chancellor the power to call for his information any paper relating  to  the
administration of the affairs of the University and upon  such  request  the
University is bound to comply  with  the  same.   Sub-section  5  vests  the
chancellor with the  power  to  annul  any  proceeding  of  any  officer  or
authority if the same is not in conformity with the provisions of  the  Act,
the statutes or the Regulations or which is prejudicial to the  interest  of
the University. A conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 15,  in  our  opinion,
leaves no manner of doubt that the  Chancellor  exercises  ample  powers  in
regard to the affairs of the University and in particular in regard  to  the
affairs of the administration of the University.  The  power  to  direct  an
inquiry into any matter concerning the administration of the  University  is
only one of the facets of power vested in the Chancellor.  The  exercise  of
any  such  power  is  not  subject   to   any   limitation   or   impediment
understandably  because  the  power  is  vested  in  a  high  constitutional
functionary who is expected to exercise the same  only  when  such  exercise
becomes necessary to correct aberrations and  streamline  administration  so
as to maintain the purity of the procedures and process  undertaken  by  the
University in all spheres dealt with by it. The power to direct  an  inquiry
is meant to kickstart corrective and remedial measures and steps  needed  to
improve the functioning of the University as much as to correct any  illegal
or improper activity in the smooth running  of  the  administration  of  the
University.  As a father figure holding a high  constitutional  office,  the
Chancellor is to be the guiding spirit for  the  Universities  to  follow  a
path of rectitude in every matter whether it concerns the administration  or
the finances of the University or touches the teaching and other  activities
that  are  undertaken  by  it.     The  legislature,  it  is  obvious,   has
considered the  conferment  of  such  powers  to  be  essential  to  prevent
indiscipline,  root  out  corruption,  prevent  chaos  or  deadlock  in  the
administration of the University or any office  or  establishment  under  it
that may tend to shake  its  credibility  among  those  who  deal  with  the
institution.

17.   The Chancellor had, in the case at hand, directed an inquiry into  the
illegalities and irregularities in the selection and appointment process  in
the light of widespread resentment against the same as is evident  from  the
fact that three writ petitions had been filed in the High Court  challenging
the selection and the appointment process.  Two of the  writ  petitions  had
been disposed of as noticed earlier no sooner Justice  Dhabe  Committee  was
constituted by the Chancellor  for  holding  a  detailed  inquiry  into  the
allegations.  The petitioners were not only aware  of  the  fact  about  the
pending writ proceedings but also about the constitution  of  Justice  Dhabe
Committee. As a matter of fact with the disposal of Writ  Petitions  No.4771
of 2006 and 905  of  2006  the  petitioner  had  known  that  Justice  Dhabe
Committee will eventually determine  whether  or  not  their  selection  and
appointment was proper. Justice Dhabe Committee had even issued  notices  to
the petitioners who had in turn responded to the same. The  constitution  of
Justice Dhabe Committee was, despite  all  this,  never  questioned  by  the
petitioners. On the contrary the petitioners  merrily  participated  in  the
proceedings and took a chance  to  obtain  a  favourable  verdict  from  it.
Having failed to do so,  they  turned  around  to  challenge  not  only  the
findings recorded by the Committee but even the authority of the  Chancellor
to set up such a Committee. While  the  findings  recorded  by  the  Inquiry
Committee could be  assailed,  the  challenge  to  the  setting  up  of  the
Committee was clearly untenable not only because there was no merit in  that
contention but also because having taken a chance  to  obtain  a  favourable
verdict the petitioners could not turn around to assail the constitution  of
the Committee itself.  Question 1 is accordingly answered in  the  negative.


Reg. Question No. 2

18.   The petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged Justice Dhabe  Committee
Report before the High Court  on  the  ground  that  principles  of  natural
justice had not been complied with by the Committee.   The  High  Court  has
noted and in our opinion rightly so that Justice Dhabe Committee had  issued
notices to each one of the petitioners asking for  their  explanation  which
the petitioners had submitted.   The  High  Court  noted  that  the  inquiry
proceedings before Justice  Dhabe  had  continued  for  nearly  three  years
during which period the petitioners had made no grievance either before  the
Committee or before  any  other  forum  regarding  non-compliance  with  the
principles of natural justice.  There is nothing on record to  suggest  that
any point relevant to the controversy was not considered  by  Justice  Dhabe
Committee or that there was any impediment in their  offering  an  effective
defence before the Committee.  The petitioners had on the contrary  candidly
admitted in the writ petition itself that upon receipt of notices  from  the
Committee they had appeared and filed  their  respective  affidavits  before
the Committee. Some of the petitioners had even  furnished  some  additional
information which was summoned from them. The Committee had, it is  evident,
associated the petitioners with the proceedings by inviting them  to  appear
and participate in the same, heard  the  petitioners  and  considered  their
version. There is neither an allegation nor any  material  to  suggest  that
there was any reluctance  or  refusal  on  the  part  of  the  Committee  to
entertain any material which the  petitioner  intended  to  place  in  their
defence or to summon any record from  any  other  quarter  relevant  to  the
questions  being  examined  by  the  Committee.   The  argument   that   the
petitioners did not know as to what the complaint against them was has  been
rejected by the High Court and quite rightly so.  Once the petitioners  were
informed about the setting up of the Committee and  invited  to  participate
in the same and once they had appeared before the Committee and filed  their
affidavits it is difficult to appreciate the argument that  the  petitioners
did so without knowing as to why was the Committee set up and what  was  the
inquiry all about.  Assuming that any  of  the  petitioners  did  not  fully
comprehend the nature of allegations being inquired into  by  the  Committee
or the purpose of the inquiry nothing prevented the petitioners from  taking
suitable steps at the appropriate stage assuming that they were so naïve  as
to simply appear before the Committee without being  aware  of  the  purpose
for which they were invited. They could indeed  approach  the  Committee  to
secure the relevant information to fully acquaint themselves about  the  on-
going process and the nature of the defences that was open to them.   Having
remained content with their participation in  the  inquiry  proceedings  for
nearly three  years  and  having  made  no  grievance  at  all  against  the
procedure adopted by the Committee in dealing  with  the  subject  till  the
writ petitions challenging the termination orders  were  filed,  we  see  no
merit in the specious contention that principles  of  natural  justice  were
violated by the Committee especially  when  no   prejudice  is  demonstrably
caused to the petitioners on account of the procedure  which  the  Committee
followed in concluding the enquiry proceedings. Question  No.2  is  also  in
that view answered in the negative.

Reg. Question No. 3

19.   Findings recorded by Justice  Dhabe  Committee  were  based  on  facts
discovered in the course of  the  inquiry.   No  serious  attempt  was  made
before the High Court nor even before us to challenge the said  findings  of
fact.  Even otherwise a finding inquiry instituted  by  the  Chancellor  was
bound  to  involve  appraisal  of  evidence,  documentary  and  oral.    The
conclusions drawn on the basis of  such  appraisal  were  open  to  critical
evaluation by the authorities before whom the  conclusions  and  the  Report
was submitted for action but once such conclusions are upon  a  careful  re-
appraisal found to  be  justified,  a  writ  Court  will  be  very  slow  in
interfering with the same.

20.   In the present case, upon receipt of the  report  from  Justice  Dhabe
Committee the matter was directed to be placed before the Executive  Council
of the University.  That direction was meant to give the  Executive  Council
an opportunity to examine the findings of fact  and  the  conclusions  drawn
from the same critically and to determine whether the same  were  justified.
The Executive Council, it is common  ground,  had  without  any  reservation
approved the  findings  recorded  by  Dhabe  Committee,  no  matter  with  a
recommendation to the Chancellor to take  a  lenient  view  in  the  matter,
having regard to the fact  that  the  petitioners  had  already  served  the
University for nearly  six  years.   The  recommendation  of  the  Executive
Council did not, however, find anything amiss with the conclusions drawn  by
the Dhabe Committee as  to  the  irregularities  in  the  selection  process
culminating in illegal appointments of the selected candidates.   The  ‘fact
finding’ aspect thus stood concluded with  the  approval  of  the  Executive
Council of the University.  The Vice Chancellor no doubt made an attempt  at
segregating what according to him was the valid part of the  selection  from
that which was not, but the Chancellor did not  approve  of  that  exercise.
The Chancellor took the view that the entire  selection  stood  vitiated  by
widespread  irregularities,  leaving  hardly  any  room  for  a  distinction
between the so called valid and invalid parts of the selection process.   Be
that as it may the fact remains that we have  not  been  able  to  find  any
reason to  interfere  with  the  findings  recorded  by  the  Justice  Dhabe
Committee.  The  sanctity  of  the  entire  selection  process  having  been
vitiated by irregularities and acts of nepotism, question No. 3  shall  have
to be answered in the negative, which we accordingly do.

Reg. Question No. 4

21.   It is also not in dispute that in compliance with  the  orders  passed
by the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor of the University had issued  notices
to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before  him  for  a  personal
hearing in support of their selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs.   It  is
also not in dispute that upon receipt of the said  notices  the  petitioners
had filed their responses in the required format  and  were  also  given  an
opportunity of being heard by the Vice Chancellor.  In  the  course  of  the
hearing the petitioners obviously relied  upon  the  written  responses  and
sought a direction against ouster from service.   There  is,  therefore,  no
merit in the submission that  upon  submission  of  the  recommendations  by
Justice Dhabe Committee the petitioners did  not  have  any  opportunity  to
present their version before the Vice Chancellor nor is it possible  to  dub
the hearing provided by the Vice Chancellor as  a  farce.   The  High  Court
has, in our opinion, rightly rejected a similar contention urged  before  it
and correctly concluded that the petitioners had failed  to  establish  that
the Vice Chancellor had either violated the principles  of  natural  justice
or that any prejudice  was  caused  by  the  procedure  adopted  by  him  in
offering them a hearing.  As a matter of fact the Vice-  Chancellor  had  in
his anxiety to help the petitioners  tried  to  sit  in  judgment  over  the
findings and conclusions of the inquiry Committee and taken  a  stance  that
was  overtly  sympathetic  towards  the   petitioners.    The   uncharitable
expression used  by  the  petitioners  as  to  the  nature  of  the  process
undertaken by the Vice Chancellor is not, therefore,  justified.   The  Vice
Chancellor had in  our  view  acted  fairly  and  fully  complied  with  the
principle of natural justice.  There is no gainsaid  that  the  requirements
of audi alteram partem are not  capable  of  a  strait  jacket  application.
Their application depends so much upon the nature of the  Tribunal  that  is
deciding the matter, the nature of the inquiry that is being  made  and  the
consequences flowing from the determination.  A notice  to  the  petitioners
who were likely to be affected and a hearing afforded  to  them  apart  from
written responses filed in reply  to  the  notices  was  in  our  opinion  a
substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice.   No  further
hearing was required to be repeated by the Chancellor who  had  before  whom
the recommendations of the Executive Committee and the Vice  Chancellor  who
took a final view of the  matter  having  regard  to  the  totality  of  the
circumstances.  The High Court has, in this regard, observed:

           “Thus, the Chancellor was not  required  to  give  any  personal
           hearing to the petitioners while disagreeing with them.   If  we
           hold that prior to passing of the final order the Chancellor was
           required to hear the petitioners once  again,  that  would  mean
           that although the facts are undisputed and although no prejudice
           is  demonstrated,  we  agree  with  the   submissions   of   the
           petitioners.  This would mean second round or second opportunity
           being made available to the petitioners to  show  cause  against
           the findings and conclusions in the Inquiry Committee’s  report.
           That would mean reopening of the matter in  its  entirety  which
           was not permissible and feasible in the peculiar  facts  of  the
           case.  This could be equated with an opportunity to  show  cause
           against the proposed  punishment  as  is  available  in  service
           jurisprudence.  Those principles cannot  be  imported  into  the
           exercise that has been undertaken in the facts and circumstances
           of this case.”



22.   We see no error of law in the view taken by the High Court to  warrant
our interference.  Question No. 4 is accordingly answered in the negative.

Reg. Question No. 5

23.   The Chancellor declined to show any leniency  to  the  petitioners  no
matter they had served the University for over six years  primarily  because
the entire selection process was  in  his  opinion  vitiated  by  widespread
irregularities in the selection process.  The findings recorded  by  Justice
Dhabe Committee upon a detailed  and  thorough  examination  of  the  matter
fully supported that view of the  Chancellor.  The  reasons  that  prevailed
with the Chancellor cannot be said to be illusory or  irrelevant  so  as  to
call for interference from a writ Court.  The Chancellor was dealing with  a
case where the Selection Committee had called a large number  of  candidates
for interview without following the proper procedure as  prescribed  by  the
State Government leading to the appointment  of  undeserving  candidates  by
manipulation and favouritism. It was a case where  the  posts  of  SRAs/JRAs
although carrying different pay scales were clubbed  for  holding  a  common
interview. Even the criterion for assessment of the merit of the  candidates
was found to be faulty.  Marks were awarded for qualifications although  the
thesis for such qualifications was submitted after the date  prescribed  for
such advertisement.  Marking  system  itself  was  found  to  be  erroneous.
Higher weightage was given to the performance in the interview  as  compared
to  academic  merit.   There  was  tinkering  in  the  mark  sheets  of  the
candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made available  in  the
meetings  of  the  Selection  Committee.     The  Chairman  and  the  Member
Secretary of the Selection Committee had on their own increased  the  number
of posts of SRAs and JRAs to be filled upon.  All these among other  aspects
were considered by Justice Dhabe Committee in  its  report  which  concluded
that the entire selection process was vitiated.  That beneficiaries of  such
faulty selection process should hold on  to  the  benefit  only  because  of
lapse of time  would  be  travesty  of  justice  especially  when  deserving
candidates were left out with a brooding sense  of  injustice  and  cynicism
against the efficacy of  the  system  that  was  meant  to  act  fairly  and
objectively.  Continuance in office of those selected by means that are  not
fair, transparent and reasonable will  amount  to  perpetuating  the  wrong.
The length of service put in by the candidates  who  were  selected  on  the
basis of such a faulty selection process may be one  of  the  considerations
that  enters  the  mind  of  the  Court  but   there   are   other   weighty
considerations that cannot be given a go bye or conveniently forgotten  lest
those who do not adopt such malpractices or those who expect the  system  to
protect their interest and their rights are eternally disappointed and  left
to believe that a wrong once done will never be corrected just  because  the
legal process by which it is to be corrected is a long and  winding  process
that often takes years to reach fruition.

24.   Having said that we must  say  that  the  main  contention  which  the
petitioners have urged in support of their continuance in  service  is  that
they have become overage for any government employment at  this  stage.   If
ousted from service the petitioners will have no place to  go  nor  even  an
opportunity to compete for the vacancies against which they were  appointed.
That is an aspect which can be and ought to be  considered  especially  when
there is no allegation leave alone evidence about any bribery  having  taken
place in the issue of appointment orders by the officials  concerned.   Even
so, continuance of the petitioners in service would not, in our opinion,  be
justified having regard  to  the  background  in  which  the  selection  and
appointments were made and eventually set  aside  by  the  University.   All
that the long years of service rendered with the University may  secure  for
the petitioners a direction to the  effect  that  in  any  future  selection
against the vacancies caused by their ouster and other  vacancies  that  may
be  available  for  the  next  selection  the  petitioners  shall  also   be
considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for  them.   Such
of the petitioners who could try their luck in the next  selection  and  who
succeed in the same will also have the benefit of continuity of service.

25.   That brings us to  the  method  of  selection  that  may  be  followed
falling up  the  vacancies  that  will  be  caused  by  the  ouster  of  the
petitioners.  An affidavit has  in  that  regard  been  filed  by  the  Shri
Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar of  the  respondent-University  stating
that in terms of Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of  2013  the  Maharashtra  State
legislature  has  amended  Maharashtra  Agricultural  Universities   (Krishi
Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983.  Section 58 of the principal Act as  substituted  by
Act XXXII aforementioned provides that no person shall be appointed  by  the
University as a member of the academic staff, except on  the  recommendation
of a Selection Board constituted for the  purpose  in  accordance  with  the
provisions of the Statutes made in that behalf.  The posts of SRAs and  JRAs
are classified as academic as per Statute 71 of the MAU statutes 1990.   The
process of amendment to  the  statute  75  and  76  is  now  underway.   The
affidavit further states that the University will not be in  a  position  to
undertake the selection process of posts advertised on 23rd March  2012  and
that selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per  the  new  selection
procedure.  The affidavit is, however,  silent  as  to  the  procedure  that
shall be followed by the Selection Board constituted  for  the  purpose.  Be
that as it may the establishment of a Selection  Board  and  formulation  of
proper procedure to be followed by the Board will go a long  way  in  making
the process of selection and  recruitment  objective,  fair  and  reasonable
apart from bringing transparency to the norms and the process by which  such
recruitments were made.  We only hope  that  the  process  of  amendment  of
relevant statute is expedited by the University  and  concluded  as  far  as
possible within six months from today and process of filling up of posts  of
SRAs and JRAs  currently  held  by  the  petitioners  and  those  that  were
advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23rd  March  2012  undertaken  in
accordance with such procedure.

26.   In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed  but  in  the
circumstances without any order as to costs.  We  however  direct  that  the
University-respondent  shall  take  necessary  steps  for  constituting  the
Selection Board in terms of Section 58 of the Act as amended by  Maharashtra
Act No. XXXII of 2013  and  advertise  the  vacancies  currently  available,
together with the posts that  are  presently  held  by  the  appellants  for
recruitment in accordance with the procedure   that  may  be  prescribed  in
accordance  with  law.   The  entire  process  shall  be  completed  by  the
University within six months.  The  appellants  shall  also  be  allowed  to
apply and participate in the selection  process  against  the  vacancies  so
advertised in  relaxation  of  the  upper  age  limit  prescribed  for  such
recruitment.   For a period of six months  or till the process of  selection
and  appointment  based  on  the  selection  process  is  completed  by  the
respondent, whichever  is  earlier,  the  appellants  shall  be  allowed  to
continue in service on the same terms as are currently applicable  to  them.
In case any one of the appellants is selected by the new selection  process,
he shall be granted benefit of continuity  of  service.   But  such  of  the
appellants who do not compete for the selection or are not selected for  the
posts that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service  on  completion
of the period of six months hereby granted. No costs.




                                                       …………..…………………..…..…J.
                                            (T.S. THAKUR)


                                                       …………..…………………..…..…J.
                                            (C NAGAPPAN)
New Delhi
April 4, 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.