SUMANAGARWAL Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The appellant was a direct recruit as a Reader and was appointed with effect from July 1987 in the Home Science Institute, Agra University. The third respondent, Dr (Mrs) Him Kumar, was appointed as a Lecturer with effect from 6/7/1968 and she was confirmed on 13/5/1969. She was promoted as a Reader on 18/2/1985 pursuant to the personal promotion scheme. On appointment as Vice- Chancellor of Bundelkhand University, Dr (Mrs) S. R Rahquir proceeded on a long leave. Consequently, the post of the Director became vacant. The question then arose as to who is to be nominated to hold that post temporarily till the Director is appointed. Dr (Mrs) Kumar Kumar claimed the post, but the University did not accede to that request. The Vice-Chancellor, to avoid controversy, had appointed a Committee headed by Dr S. V. Pandey and the appellant and the third respondent as the members, with effect from 9/1/1995. Dr (Mrs) Hiru Kumar filed a writ petition in the High court claiming that she had earlier officiated as Director in leave vacancies of the erstwhile Director viz. Dr (Mrs) S. R Rahquir. She is the senior most teacher in the Institute and consequently, she is entitled to be appointed temporarily as Acting Director. Initially, the appellant was not impleaded as party- respondent to the writ petition. At her behest, she was impleaded as a respondent. The division bench of the High court held that since the Executive council had not approved of the appointment of the Committee by the Vice-Chancellor, and Dr (Mrs) Hiru Kumar being the seniormost teacher is entitled to be temporarily kept in-charge of the post of Director. Inaddition, the High court also directed to finalise the appointment to the post of Professor within one month from the date of the order. This order came to be issued on 24/5/1995 in Writ Petition No. 10669 of 1995. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri Dhingra, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant being a direct recruit, by operation of Ss. (3 of Section 31-Aofthe U. P. State Universities Act,. 1973 (for short 'the Act') which was brought into force by way of an amendment, the post of Reader is reserved for a direct recruit in accordance with the provision of Section 31. The promotion given to Dr (Mrs) Hiru Kumar as a Reader is one-time promotion by operation of para 11.12-B (6 of the statutes. She is not a member of the cadre of Reader. The appellant, having been appointed to a substantive vacancy in the year 1987, is a member of the cadre while the third respondent was appointed as a Reader to an ex-cadre post by Personal Promotion Scheme, which is only personal to her. So she did not become part of the regular cadre. Therefore, she cannot claim seniority over the appellant for appointment as Director. Thereby the appellant alone is entitled to be considered as acting Director, pending appointment of the Director. The contention has been resisted by Shri Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent.