RAM CHANDRA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS

RAM CHANDRA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS CASE 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11212 OF 2017
RAM CHANDRA     ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.    ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T 
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The   appellant   has   filed   this   appeal   challenging   the
judgment and order dated 25th  March, 2014, passed by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Writ Petition
No.   17066   of   2014,   whereby   the   said   writ   petition   was
dismissed.  
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as
under:
1
3. The   Respondent­Bundelkhand   University   (hereinafter
referred to as “the University”) had published an advertisement
for making appointments to various posts of teaching faculty in
the year 2002.
4. The   appellant   had   applied   in   response   to   the   said
advertisement and was interviewed by a Selection Committee,
which was constituted in accordance with sub­section (4) of
Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Act’).
5. Though, the appellant was not found suitable for the post
advertised, he came to be appointed as a Lecturer (Geology)
vide order dated 28th February, 2002.  
6. Another advertisement came to be issued in the year 2002
for the post of Reader in the subject of Geology.  The Selection
Committee,   which   was   constituted   in   accordance   with   the
statutory   provisions,   found   the   appellant   suitable   and
recommended him for appointment as a Reader in the subject
of   Geology.   The   Executive   Council   of   the   University,   in   its
2
meeting   held   on   1st  February,   2003,   accepted   the   said
recommendation.  The appellant was, accordingly, appointed as
Reader in the subject of Geology.
7. It appears that after a long period following the appellant’s
appointment,   certain   complaints   were   made   to   the   Hon’ble
Chancellor   that   the   appellant’s   appointment   was   not   in
accordance   with   law.     The   Hon’ble   Chancellor   therefore,
initiated suo motu enquiry under Section 68 of the 1973 Act. In
the enquiry, the Hon’ble Chancellor found that the appointment
of the appellant was not in accordance with law and as such,
he issued an order dated 3rd March, 2014, under Section 68 of
the   1973   Act,  directing   to   set   aside   the   successive
appointments and promotion of the appellant.   In pursuance
thereof, the appellant’s service came to be terminated vide order
dated 7th March, 2014.  Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant
filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad.   The
High Court of Allahabad vide impugned order dated 25th March,
3
2014, dismissed the Writ Petition No.17066 of 2014.  Aggrieved
thereby, the present appeal.
8. We   have   heard   Ms.   Neela   Gokhale,   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Gaurav Agarwal,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   RespondentUniversity.
9. The Hon’ble Chancellor, while finding that the appellant’s
appointment was not legal, has observed that the Selection
Committee to be constituted under Section 31(4)(a) of the 1973
Act was required to have three experts to be nominated by the
Hon’ble Chancellor. The Hon’ble Chancellor found that neither
the University sent the requisition for nomination of the subject
experts nor he had appointed any subject experts.     It was
therefore found that the selection which was contrary to the
provisions of Section 31 of the 1973 Act, was not sustainable in
law.    
10. Undisputedly, even when the appellant was appointed as
a lecturer in the year 2002 vide order dated 28th  February,
4
2002, he had responded to the advertisement and his selection
was done after the selection procedure as prescribed under the
1973   Act   was   followed.       Insofar   as   the   post   of   Reader   is
concerned, an advertisement was specifically issued for the said
post.     The   appellant   had   applied   in   response   to   the   said
advertisement.   The Selection Committee having two subject
experts, interviewed him.  After finding him to be suitable, the
Executive   Council   of   the   University   accepted   the
recommendation   of   the   Selection   Committee   and   only
thereafter, the appellant was appointed.  It could thus be seen
that the selection of the appellant was done after following the
selection procedure as prescribed by the 1973 Act.   
11. A perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor
would reveal that the Hon’ble Chancellor has observed that
after year 2001, the University had not sought nomination for
panel of experts.   
12. A   further   perusal   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Hon’ble
Chancellor   would   reveal   that   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor   had
5
forwarded the names of the following persons in response to the
letter of the Vice­Chancellor dated 25th May, 2001:­ 
1.  Prof. S.K. Lunkad, Kurukshetra University, Haryana.
2. Prof. N.K. Singh, Patna University, Bihar.
3. Prof. V.K. Verma, University of Delhi.
4. Prof. S. Mukherjee, University of Calcutta (WB)
5. Prof. Y.P. Gupta, University of Jammu (J&K)
13. Perusal of the order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor
itself would reveal that the Selection Committee, which selected
the appellant for the post of Reader, consisted of the following
members:­
1. Prof. Ramesh Chandra – Vice­Chancellor/Chairman.
2. Prof. S.K. Lunkad – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.
3. Prof. Y.P. Gupta – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.
4. Prof. S.P. Singh – HOD & Dean Faculty of Science.
5. Shri V.K. Sinha – Registrar/Secretary.
14. It could thus be seen that Prof. S.K. Lunkad and Prof. Y.P.
Gupta, who were nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor vide
communication dated 13th July, 2001, were very much there in
the Selection Committee.   
15. It can thus clearly be seen that the Selection Committee
consisted of two Chancellor’s nominees.  In any case, if fresh
6
nominations were not sought for by the University from the
Hon’ble Chancellor, the appellant cannot be faulted with.   It is
a matter of fact that the appellant came to be appointed after
undergoing   entire   selection   process   as   required   under   the
statute.     The order passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor itself
would reveal that the two Chancellor’s nominees were available
in the Selection Committee which selected the appellant.
16. In that view of the matter, we find that the order dated 3rd
March, 2014, passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated
7
th March, 2014, passed by the Registrar of the University and
the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   are   not
sustainable in law.  There is no finding in the impugned order
of   the   High   Court   that   the   appellant   does   not   possess   the
requisite qualification.  The appellant had served for a period of
12 years before the order directing his termination was passed
by the Hon’ble Chancellor.  In that view of the matter, we are of
the considered view that the termination of the appellant is not
sustainable in law. 
7
17. We are informed that during the pendency of the appeal,
the appellant has already superannuated. We will, therefore,
have to accordingly mould the relief.   
18. It is also stated at the bar that in view of the order of
status quo passed by this court on 9th May, 2014, the appellant
still continues to occupy the University accommodation.  After
superannuating, the appellant is not entitled to continue with
the said accommodation.
19. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The   order   dated   3rd  March,   2014,   passed   by   the
Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated 7th March, 2014,
passed by the Registrar of the University and the
impugned order dated 25th  March, 2014, passed by
the High Court of Allahabad are quashed and set
aside.
(iii) Since the termination of the appellant is set aside,
the appellant would be entitled for all the terminal
8
benefits   treating   the   period   between   the   date   of
termination and the date of retirement as a period in
continuous service.    However, the appellant would
not be entitled for back wages for the period during
which he was out of employment.   
(iv) All the terminal benefits to which the appellant is
entitled, shall be paid to him within a period of three
months from today.
(v) The   appellant  is   directed  to   handover   vacant   and
peaceful possession of the University accommodation
in his occupation within a period of three months
from today.  
20. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed   of.
There shall be no order as to costs. 
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 10, 2022.
9

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर