DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA VS STATE OF U.P. Supreme Court Case 2022

DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA VS STATE OF U.P. Supreme Court Case 2022

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1913 OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 26763 OF 2015)

DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA                                      …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                  …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition seeking to quash

an order of the Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth

University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’), rejecting his

request to be appointed as Lecturer (Karm Kand), the appellant is

before this Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned

counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University, the learned

1

counsel for University itself and the learned standing counsel for the

State.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above appeal are

as follows:­

(i) Vide order dated 22.10.1996, the State of U.P sanctioned

one post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ in the Department of

Sanskrit   in   the   University,   which   is   arrayed   as   the   5th

respondent herein.   The Chancellor of the University, the

Executive Council and the Vice Chancellor of the University

are arrayed separately as respondents 2 to 4 herein for

reasons not difficult to fathom.

(ii) It appears that one Shri Jai Prakash Pandey was initially

appointed   to   the   said   post   and   his   services   were   also

regularised. But the regularisation of his services was set

aside by the High Court by an order dated 19.08.2006 in

Writ Petition No.35149 of 1999.

(iii) Thereafter,   the   appellant   herein   was   engaged   by   the

University as a Guest Lecturer to teach ‘Karm Kand’ to the

students in the Department of Sanskrit. The remuneration

2

payable to him was fixed at Rs.250/­ per lecture subject to

a maximum of Rs.5,000/­ per month.

(iv) A   proposal   to   fill   up   the   post   on   regular   basis   was

submitted by the Head of the Department of Sanskrit on

16.10.2006.   It   was   approved   by   the   Vice­Chancellor   on

18.10.2006.   Pursuant   thereto,   the   University   issued   an

advertisement bearing Advertisement No.2 of 2006, inviting

applications   for   appointment   to   one   post   of   Lecturer   in

‘Karm Kand’. The advertisement also contained invitation

for   applications   for   various   other   posts   in   various

departments. We are not concerned in this case with the

posts   in   other   departments   for   which   applications   were

invited in the same advertisement. Suffice it to say that

applications   were   invited   for   appointment   to   8   posts   of

lecturers   in   various   subjects,   one   of   which   was   for

appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.

(v) Unfortunately,   a   controversy   erupted,   when   the   then

Chancellor of the University issued an oral order restraining

the   Vice­Chancellor   from   convening   the   meetings   of

3

Selection   Committees   pursuant   to   the   aforesaid

advertisement, on the ground that the Vice­Chancellor was

due to retire on 31.12.2007. But the High Court, by an

order dated 04.10.2007 passed in a writ petition, made it

clear   that   statutory   functions   performed   by   the   Vice

Chancellor cannot be put on hold by oral orders of the

Chancellor. Thereafter, a written order was issued by the

Chancellor   on   14.12.2007.   However,   the   said   order   was

challenged in another writ petition and the same was stayed

by   the   Allahabad   High   Court,   paving   the   way   for   the

Selection Committees to proceed further pursuant to the

Advertisement No.2 of 2006.

(vi) As a consequence, the Selection Committees in respect of

various posts held meetings and made recommendations.

Some   of   these   recommendations   were   accepted   by   the

Executive Council by its Resolution dated 24.12.2007.  

(vii) Since the Vice­Chancellor retired in the meantime before

the recommendations were implemented, a batch of writ

petitions came to be filed. A spate of interim orders came to

4

be passed pursuant to which the Executive Council decided

to refer the recommendations of the Selection Committees

to the Chancellor under the proviso to Section 31(8)(a) of

the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

(viii) In the case of the appellant, the Selection Committee had

recommended his candidature for appointment to the post

of   Lecturer   in   ‘Karm   Kand’.   But   the   Executive   Council

disagreed with the Selection Committee on the ground that

the   Vice­Chancellor   failed   to   request   the   Chancellor   to

nominate subject experts in the Selection Committee. It is

relevant   to   note   here   that   the   Selection   Committee

shortlisted   only   two   persons,   one   of   whom   was   the

appellant and other Dr. Jai Prakash Pandey. The said Dr.

Jai   Prakash   Pandey   had   secured   only   49.2%   marks   as

against the minimum prescription. Therefore, he was not

issued with any interview call letter.

(ix) Agreeing with the decision of the Executive Council, the

Chancellor passed an order dated 23/28.12.2010 annulling

5

the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for

the appointment of the appellant.

(x) The appellant challenged the said order of the Chancellor by

way of a writ petition in Writ Petition No.6389 of 2011. By

an   Order   dated   02.12.2011,   the   said   writ   petition   was

allowed and the matter remanded back to the Chancellor.

The   reason   why   the   matter   was   remanded   back   to   the

Chancellor was that admittedly there was no University in

the country awarding a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’

and that, therefore, there were actually no experts in the

subject of ‘Karm Kand’, as sought to be projected by the

Chancellor.   Since   the   question   whether   subject   experts

were at all available in the field of ‘Karm Kand’ went to the

root of the matter, the High Court thought fit to remand the

matter back to the Chancellor.

(xi) Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   direction,   the   Chancellor

considered   the   matter   and   passed   a   fresh   order   dated

24.08.2012, rejecting the recommendation of the Selection

Committee. This order was challenged by the appellant by

6

way of a fresh writ petition in Writ Petition No.63137 of

2012. By the  Order dated 14.05.2015 impugned in  this

appeal, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court

dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground

that   after   the   order   of   remand,   the   Chancellor   had

consulted a few experts and found that the subject of ‘Karm

Kand’ is altogether different from the subject Sanskrit and

that   therefore,  with   the   qualifications   that   the   appellant

possessed,   he   could   not   have   been   selected   for

appointment. It is against this order of the High Court that

the appellant is before us.

4. Before   we   proceed   to   consider   the   core   issue   arising   for

consideration, we are obliged to take note of the fact that admittedly

the appellant was engaged as a Guest Lecturer on remuneration of

Rs.250/­ per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.5000/­ per month

from the year 2006. Ever since then the appellant has been teaching

students undergoing a one year diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ for the

past nearly 16 years.

7

5. The next thing we have to take note of before we take up for

consideration   the   issue   arising   in   the   above   appeal,   is   that   the

appellant, and perhaps the entire selection process undertaken in

2006 by the University, became victims of the crossfire between the

Chancellor   and   the   Vice­Chancellor.   Admittedly,   the   post   was

originally filled up by a person who was actually the  purohit  to the

then Governor of State of Uttar Pradesh.  But his appointment was set

aside by Allahabad High Court by an order dated 19.08.2006. It is

only thereafter that Advertisement No.2 of 2006 came to be issued,

inviting applications for appointment to the post.

6. But it is of interest to note that the advertisement did not specify

particularly that a candidate applying for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm

Kand’ should hold a Master’s Degree in ‘Karm Kand’. In fact the order

of the Chancellor dated 24.08.2012 which became the subject matter

of   the   writ   petition,   specifically   concedes   as   follows:  “there   is   no

mention of the subject Karm Kand in the Statutes of the Mahatma

Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth nor any Ordinance under Section 51/52 nor

any Regulations under Section 53 of the U.P. State Universities Act,

1973.  The order of the Chancellor only relied upon Statute 11.01(1) of

8

the University First Statutes, 1977, which stipulated that the minimum

qualifications required for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the

University or a Master’s Degree or equivalent degree in relevant subject

with at least 55% marks and consistently good academic record and

NET or Ph.D. degree”.

7. In   his   order   dated   24.08.2012,   the   Chancellor   held   that   the

appellant did not hold a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’. But before he

came to such a conclusion, the Chancellor as well as the High Court

ought to have verified (i) whether the Statutes prescribed any specific

qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of Lecturer in

‘Karm Kand’; and  (ii)  if not, what should be considered as “relevant

subject and by whom”.

8. It must be pointed out at this stage that in the first instance, the

Executive Council took a stand that the selection of the appellant was

vitiated primarily on account of non­inclusion of subject experts in the

field of ‘Karm Kand’. The appellant was not held by the Executive

Council to be a person not possessing the prescribed qualifications for

appointment.   This is why the order of remand passed by the High

Court on 02.12.2011 specifically directed the Chancellor to consider

9

whether   or   not   there   were   subject   experts   in   ‘Karm   Kand’   to   be

included in the Selection Committee. Instead of confining himself to

the said question, the Chancellor seems to have taken the opinion of

one Professor Gaya Ram Pandey, Head of the Department of Sanskrit

to come to the conclusion that ‘Karm Kand’ and Sanskrit are two

separate subjects and that while ‘Karm Kand’ is a practical subject,

Sanskrit is not. The said Professor Gaya Ram Pandey also seems to

have provided information to the effect (i) that a few universities such

as   Banaras   Hindu   University,   Sampurnanand   Sanskrit   University,

Lucknow University, and Lal Bahadur Shashtri Rashtriya Sanskrit

Vidyapeeth have included ‘Karm Kand’ as a subject in their courses;

and (ii)  that, however, according to the information from the Registrar

of Lal Bahadur Shashtri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, there is no

post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. In his order dated 24.08.2012 the

Chancellor also recorded that certain universities teach the subject of

Karm Kand/Paurohitya and provide degrees like Acharya (M.A) and

Vidyavaridhi (Ph.D.).

9. Obviously the consultations made by the Chancellor with certain

persons and the information gathered by him before passing the order

10

impugned before the High Court, were beyond the scope of order of

remand passed by the High Court. The information collected by the

Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection of

the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the appellant. 

10. In the course of hearing of the above appeal, we raised a pointed

query to Shri Sandeep D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the

University as to whether the Statutes of University prescribed any

specific qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm

Kand’ or at least whether Advertisement No.2 of 2006 indicated the

qualifications. He had no alternative but to concede that the statutes

do  not  contain  any prescription  regarding the  post of  Lecturer in

‘Karm Kand’. He also conceded that the advertisement did not indicate

any specific qualification except that the aspirant should hold a post

graduate degree in the relevant subject.

11. In the absence of any specific prescription, the University ought

to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects,

before the process of selection began. Neither the University nor the

Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant was

not qualified in the “relevant subject”. Their initial objection was that

11

the   Selection   Committee   did   not   include   the   subject   experts

nominated by the Chancellor. After it was pointed out that there were

no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as no University was offering a

specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the High Court thought fit to remand

the   matter   back   to   the   Chancellor,   to   ascertain   whether   subject

experts were actually available and whether the failure of the Vice

Chancellor to seek nomination of such experts from the Chancellor

vitiated   the   whole   process.   Finding   that   the   answer   to   the   said

question was too difficult to be provided, the Chancellor went on a

detour to find out what are the differences between the subject of

Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’. This was clearly erroneous

and the High Court unfortunately omitted to notice this mistake.  

12. Admittedly, the appellant has been teaching ‘Karm Kand’ for the

past   nearly   16   years  in   the  same  University.   Though   the   learned

counsel for the University stated that his continuance was on account

of an interim order of status quo passed by this Court, we notice that

the   interim   order   of   status   quo   was   passed   only   on   14.09.2015.

Unless the appellant was continuing as on that date, the order of

status quo would have meant nothing for him.

12

13. The parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent to a

post   does   not   fulfil   the   qualifications   prescribed   for   a   post,   are

different from the parameters to be applied to a case where no specific

qualifications are prescribed for a particular post. The question as to

what   constitutes  “relevant   subject”  should   have   been   left   to   the

experts, before  the  advertisement   was  issued,  especially  when  the

statutes did not prescribe any specific qualifications. This did not

happen in this case. In fact the question whether subject experts were

available at all in ‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy.

The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of

war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice

Chancellor,   making   the   appellant   a   victim   in   the   line   of   fire.

Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this.

14. The   expression   “equivalent   qualifications”   has   a   different

connotation   than   the   expression   “relevant   subject”.     In  Punjab

University  vs.  Narinder   Kumar   and   Others1

,   this   Court   was

concerned with the interpretation of the expression “relevant subject”.

But in that case the advertisement itself prescribed “the  essential

1 (1999) 9 SCC 8

13

qualifications” under one head and “desirable specialisation” under

another head.   Therefore, this Court found that though the words

“relevant subject” did not throw any light on the question as to what

are the relevant subjects for the post of a Lecturer in any specified

subject, the column dealing with “desirable qualifications” threw light

upon what was relevant.  Therefore, cases in which a clue is available

in the advertisement itself may stand on a different footing than cases

where there is no such clue.

15. In  Ganapath   Singh   Gangaram   Singh   Rajput  vs.  Gulbarga

University2

, this Court was concerned with a case where applications

were invited for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA, from

candidates holding a post graduate degree in the “relevant subject”.

As a matter of fact, this Court found that candidates with Masters’

degree in Computer Applications were available, but a candidate with

Masters’ degree in Mathematics was selected.  This Court found fault

with   the   decision   of   the   Board   of   Appointment   in   selecting   the

candidate   with   a   Master’s   degree   in   Mathematics   with   a   flawed

reasoning that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.  

2 (2014) 3 SCC 767

14

16. In the case on hand no candidate was available with a post

graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which

comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found the

appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject.   The

appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit.

17. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition before the High

Court,  the  Academic  Council  of   the  University  held  a  meeting  on

22.08.2013.   Agenda   No.10   for   the   said   meeting   related   to   the

qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.

The recommendation made by the Head of the Department of Sanskrit

was accepted by the Academic Council.  Agenda Item No.10 of the said

meeting of the Academic Council reads as follows:

“Agenda No.10: Recommendations  of Department of

Sanskrit.     Prof   Uma   Rani   Tripathi   Head   of   the

Department,   Department   of   Sanskrit   gave   the

information   related   to   the   recommendation   of   the

Department of Sanskrit by apprising that the Academic

Qualification   of   the   Karm   Kand   and   for   the   post   of

Professor of Sanskrit be kept one and the same as well

as   the   Specialized   experience   of   karm   kand   be

stipulated   as   compulsory   which   was   passed

unanimously”

15

18. If   only   the   High   Court   had   looked   into   the   minutes   of   the

meetings of the Academic Council it could have easily appreciated that

the appellant was entitled to succeed.

19. Under Section 25(1)(c) of the U.P. University Act, the Academic

Council is empowered to advise the Executive Council with regard to

the   qualifications   required   to   be   possessed   by   persons   imparting

instructions on particular subjects.   Therefore, the minutes of the

meetings of the Academic Council dated 22.08.2013 has clinched the

issue in favour of the appellant.  Hence it is time for the University to

put an end to this ‘Yuddh Kand’ and allow the appellant to move from

‘Karm Kand’ to ‘Karm Phal Kand’.

20. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High

Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant before the

High Court is allowed, as prayed for. In view of the fact  (i)  that the

appellant has been teaching the very same subject for the past nearly

16 years; and (ii) that the original Selection Committee which found

him   eligible   for   appointment,   comprised   of   Professors   from   the

Department of Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’

16

was a part, a direction is issued to the 5th  respondent­University to

regularise the services of the appellant.  There shall be no order as to

costs.

…………………………….J.

(Hemant Gupta)

…………………………….J.

(V. Ramasubramanian)

New Delhi

March  24, 2022.

17