Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.
We have heard Shri Rajeev Misra for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Chaubey appears for the Committee of Management Devi Prasadiya Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jagdishpur, Ballia. No one appears for Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (in short, the College).
In this writ petition filed in the year 1992, the petitioner has prayed for directions, to quash the order dated 28/30.3.1992 passed by the Chancellor of the University cancelling his appointment as Assistant Teacher (Hindi), in the College.
Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that there were four substantive vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher in the College. The Committee of Management advertised the vacancies in daily newspapers on 30.3.1990. The petitioner and three other teachers applied for one of these posts of Assistant Teacher in 'Adhunik Vishai Hindi'. The Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment. It is alleged that the Manager and Principal of the Mahavidyalaya made interpolations in the list recommended by the Selection Committee, and added the name of Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta in the list.
Dr. Uma Kant Tripathi, one of the experts in the Selection Committee, informed the Vice Chancellor that the Selection Committee had recommended for the name of the petitioner in its meeting of the Selection Committee dated 15.12.1990, but the Manager and Principal did not agree and did not sign the proceedings. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University on 28.8.1991. He also approved the appointment of Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey as Assistant Teacher in 'Navya Vyakaran' by giving him relaxation as he has less than 50% marks in the qualifying examination.
Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta filed a writ petition which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to approach the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act, 1971. His representation in pursuance to the order of this Court dated 11.10.1991, was decided by the Chancellor. By his order dated 28/30.3.1992 the representation was allowed, giving rise to this writ petition.
The petitioner has challenged the order of the Chancellor on the grounds that out of the four candidates for the post of Assistant Teacher in 'Adhunik Hindi', three candidates were M.A. in 3rd division. The Selection Committee had the power to relax the qualification. The petitioner was found to be the most suitable candidate by the Selection Committee for appointment and thus the Chancellor has acted arbitrarily in allowing the representation of Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta and in cancelling the petitioner's selection and appointment.
The Chancellor in his order has found that the advertisement prescribed that the candidate for selections should have a post graduate degree, in the concerned subject with first class or second class marks, and five years' teaching experience in the subject. Shri Ravi Shanker Upadhyay, the petitioner did not have any teaching experience and had passed M.A. Examination in 3rd Division. In comparison to him, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh and Shri Udai Pratap Misra also had 3rd class marks in M.A. Examination but Shri Udai Pratap Mishra has six years' teaching experience. The fourth candidate Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta had passed MA in Hindi in second class, and had 13 years' of teaching experience. One of the members of the Selection Committee Shri Uma Kanta Tripathi informed the Vice Chancellor that the Principal and Manager had not signed on the proceedings of the Selection Committee.
The Chancellor quoted the recommendations of the Selection Committee as follows:-
^^vkt fnukad 12-12-1990 bZ0 dks Jh nsoh izlknh; laLd`r egkfo|ky; cfy;k ds fjDr lgk;d v/;kid vk/kqfud fo"k; fgUnh ds p;u gsrq Jh egknso izlkn dh v/;{krk esa p;u lfefr ds cSBd gqbZA mifLFkr vH;fFkZ;ksa esa Jh lqHkk"k pUnz xqIrk dks loZ lEefr ls ;ksX;rk ik;kA vr% mDr in ij Jh lqHkk"k pUnz xqIrk dks izFke ,oa Jh jfo'kadj mik/;k; dks fu;qfDr gsrq f}rh; ojh;rk gsrq laLrqr p;u lfefr iznku djrh gSA p;u lfefr dh mijksDr laLrqfr esa mDr in ds okn ij Jh lqHkk"k pUnz xqIrk dks izFke ,oa rFkk fu;qfDr gsrq ds i'pkr f}rh; ojh;rk gsrq tksM+k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA blds lkFk&lkFk laLrqfr esa fuEu mYys[k Hkh fd;k x;k gSA ge yksxksa ds lk{kkRdkj gksus ij Jh lqHkk"k pUnzxqIrk dk LFkku izFke jgk gS vr% izcU/kd ,oa iz/kkukpk;Z Jh lqHkk"k pUnz xqIrk dh fu;qfDr dh laLrqfr djrs gSaA g0 egknso izlkn [email protected];k'kadj 'kqDyk izcU/kd iz/kkukpk;ZA^^ The Chancellor has observed in his order, that under Statute 11.14 of the First Statute of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University the qualification of the teachers is prescribed to be the same as it is provided in the Ordinances of the University. The advertised qualifications were the same as they were prescribed in the Ordinances of the University and thus it was essential to have at least first class or second class Post Graduate degree for selection. Shri Ravi Shanker Upadhyay the petitioner was not qualified, as he had passed Master Degree in Hindi in 3rd Division. The Chancellor further found that the Manager and the Principal of the institution as members of the Selection Committee did not recommend the petitioner for appointment.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal of the College, it is stated that out of the four candidates, three had passed MA examination in 3rd division. Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta was the only candidates, who had passed MA in second division, and had over 13 years teaching experience, which was unanimously adjudged for the post and therefore, his name was entered as the best candidate with common consent. Shri Uma Kant Tripathi, one of the experts wanted heavy amount (para-8 of the counter affidavit) which could not be provided. He arbitrarily put the name of Shri Ravi Shanker Upadhyay in the subject, meant for the name as the selected candidate. A discussion followed on the disagreement as to how an unqualified candidate could be recommended ignoring the most suitable and qualified person. The stalemate was resolved by the members of the Selection Committee by making additions to the effect that Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta was recommended at serial No. 1 and the petitioner at serial No.2. The document annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition by the petitioner is not the true copy and does not bear the signatures of both the experts. Dr. Uma Kant Tripathi thereafter made a false complaint to the Vice Chancellor.
On 4.5.1992 learned Single Judge hearing the matter directed that in case the petitioner is continuing to hold the post of Lecturer in the subject of 'Adhunik Vishai Hindi', the operation of the impugned order dated 28/30.3.1992 shall remain stayed. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 8.2.1992, and was restored. It was again dismissed for want of prosecution on 30.10.2002 and was again restored.
The Ordinances of the University, approved in the meetings of the Executive Council dated 9.9.1990, effective from the same date, provide for a first class or second class post graduate degree in the concerned subject, and five years teaching experience as essential qualification and experience for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Colleges. The petitioner did not enclose the relevant Ordinances and the Statutes of the University and also did not enclose the advertisement, with the writ petition. He also did not implead Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta, a necessary party, as party respondent to the writ petition. The order of the Chancellor shows that the petitioner was allowed to represent his case and that his representation was considered.
The petitioner did not hold essential qualifications for appointment. The records show that the Manager and the Principal did not agree to his appointment, as he was not holding the essential qualification. One of the expert demanded illegal gratification and had refused to sign on the proceedings. In the circumstances, the question of exemption given to the petitioner by the Selection Committee, as alleged by him, did not arise. The appointment of petitioner followed on a false representation, and was approved by the Vice Chancellor. It is unfortunate that the petitioner, who was not having essential qualification and experience for appointment, was recommended, appointed and continued to serve inspite of a fair and reasonable order passed by the Chancellor on 28.3.1992, in terms of the interim orders of this Court.
The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order is discharged.
Dt.29.9.2010 RKP/