Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and learned counsel for the University.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.8.2004 whereby the learned Chancellor has directed to hold fresh selection after not agreeing with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee.
As per the the brief facts of the case, an advertisement was issued in the year 2003 for filling up various vacancies in the different departments of Lucknow University. The qualification for the post advertised was provided in the advertisement as per the First Statute of Lucknow University, 1976. The petitioner having the first class career throughout High School and having prescribed qualification applied for the post of Reader in the Department of Chemistry. He was called for interview which was held on 29.6.2004. As against six candidates only four candidates including petitioner appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee. The name of petitioner was placed at Sl No. 1 in the merit list by the Selection Committee. It is to be noted that the recommendation of the Selection Committee was to be approved by the Executive Council of the Lucknow University. There was difference of opinion in the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and the Executive Council of the Lucknow University, as such, a reference was made under Section 68 of the State Universities Act to the learned Chancellor. The learned Chancellor by the impugned order held that the Selection Committee has not properly made the selection and, as such, directed to hold a fresh selection. The order of the learned Chancellor is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Mylarappa vs. R. Venkatasubbaiah and ors; (2008) 14 SCC 306 submits that the learned Chancellor could not have reviewed the decision of the Selection Committee and ordered for fresh selection. The Selection Committee had made the selection by making assessment of relative merit of rival candidates determined in the course of the interview of the candidates possessing the required eligibility.
Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basavaiah vs. H.L. Ramesh and ors; (2010) 8 SCC 372, particularly paragraphs 26 & 27, wherein it has been observed that the expert committee consisting of highly qualified five distinguished experts evaluated qualification, experience and published work of the candidates before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. It was held that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the expert committee consisting of five experts.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.
The Executive Council of the Lucknow University did not approve the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and as per the Executive Council's decision the Selection Committee had not properly made the assessment of comparative merit of the candidates and more meritorious persons were left over whereas the petitioner was placed at Sl No. 1 in the merit list. The learned Chancellor agreeing with the decision of the Executive Council has directed to hold a fresh selection by cancelling the earlier selection held in the category of OBC on the post of Reader in Chemistry.
So far as the contention of learned counsel for relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of B.C. Mylarappa (supra) and Basavaiah (supra) are concerned, there is no dispute to the legal proposition that the Court or the Chancellor cannot review the recommendations of the Selection Committee and re-assess the criteria of merit of the candidates before Selection Committee, however, in the present case, the Executive Council had come to conclusion that the Selection Committee had wrongly left more meritorious candidates and placed the petitioner at Sl No. 1 in the merit list. The petitioner had only three months experience whereas other candidates had 6 years, 12 years and 18 years of experience. The learned Chancellor had agreed with the decision of the Executive Council and, therefore, directed to hold a fresh selection.
We have also taken note of the fact that the said selection was held in the year 2003 and the petitioner must have attained the age of years by now, as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case we upset the decision of the learned Chancellor and allow the decision of the Selection Committee to be implemented. It would be appropriate that a fresh selection be held in accordance with law, if already not held.
The writ petition in the given facts and circumstances is dismissed.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Santosh/-