B NAGAPPA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has in this writ petition prayed for the quashing the resolution of the Mysore University Syndicate on Subject No.33 dated 5-5-1973 in so far as it lirects the readvertisement of the post of Deputy Librarian. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appointing authority to appoint the petitioner as the Deputy Librarian in pursuance of the selection made by the Selection Committee. The only respondent in this writ petition is the University of Mysore. When this writ petion came up for preliminary hearing, notice was issued to the respondent as to why rule nisi should not be issued in this case. In response to the said notice, the University has entered appearance and filed the statement of objections, supported by an affidavit on 20-8-1973. In paragraph 1 of the statement of objections, it is stated that the petitioner could not have secured a copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Syndicate impugned in this writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner has not made any request officially for the grant of the same. It is also submitted that the proceedings of the syndicate are not available to persons other than the members of the syndicate. The petitioner has filed a copy of the resolution of the Mysore University Syndicate which is impugned in this case. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is not stated as to how he was able to secure a copy of the resolution. In the reply filed by the petitioner today, it is not stated by him as to how he was able to secure a copy of the resolution of the Syndicate. In these circumstances, the only reasonable inference possible is that the petitioner has secured possession of the copy of the resolution not in accordance with the well- known method of securing copies from the concerned authorities but in a manner which cannot be regarded as proper. Sri S. K.Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that he is making a statement to the effect that the petitioner got a copy of the resolution from a member of the Senate of the Mysore University. This is an information which was required to be given by the petitioner himself who must be regarded as haying the requisite knowledge as to the manner in which he secured the copy of the resolution. The name of the Senate Member who supplied the copy of the resolution has not been stated. The petitioner had an opportunity of meeting the statement made on behalf of the University when he filed his reply affidavit. As the petitioner has not been able to offer any satisfactory explanation as to how he came into possession of the copy of the resolution of the Syndicate, I would be justified in declining to exercise my jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. I, therefore, propose to decline to exercise my jurisdiction in this case.

(2.) Even on merits, I find it difficult to agree with the contention of Sri S. K.Venkataranga, Iyengar. It was submitted by Sri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V. Tarakaram, learned Counsel for the respondent that the appointing authority so far as the Deputy Librarian is concerned is the Chancellor of the University. It is not disputed that it is the Syndicate which resolved to advertise the post of Deputy Librarian. It is also not disputed that tha Syndicate has constituted a Selection Committee for interviewing the candidates. It is also not disputed that the Selection Committee did make a report to the Syndicate to the effect that the petitioner may be appointed to the post of Deputy Librarian. It is also not disputed that the recommendation of the Seleciton Committee was not unanimous. It is also not disputed that after considering the report of the Selection Committee, the Syndicate passed the impugned resolution to re-advertise the post of Deputy Librarian.

(3.) It was contended by Sri Venkataranga Iyengar that the Syndicate has constituted the Selection Committee under Rule 4 of the Rules of Recruitment Governing Appointments in the University read with S.29 of the Mysore University Act, 1956. Rule 4 in so far as it is material for our purpose only envisages that where the posts are required to be filled by 'direct recruitment', the selection to the appointment shall be made on merits after giving adequate publicity tc the recruitment. The post of Deputy Librarian, with which we are concerned is sought to be filled up by direct recruitment. The only mandate of Rule 4 is that adequate publicity should be given of such recruitment. Rule 4 in terms does not provide for the constitution of a Selection Committee. The only other provision is S.29 of the Mysore University Act, 1956 which provides that every authority of the University shall have power to appoint committees to deal with and report on any matter referred to them. It is clear from the language of S.29 of the Act that the committee appointed u/s.29 has got to report back to the authority which has appointed it. In accordance with S.29 of the Act, the Selection Committee reporeted the matter to the Syndicate. The Syndicate, as is clear from the submissions made by the Counsel on both sides, could not itself make the appointment but it is the Chancellor of the University that could make the appointment. All that the Syndicate could have done in these circumstances is to make appropriate recommendations to the Chancellor for his approval. From the language of S.29 of the Act, it is clear that the committee has got to submit its report to the authority which appointed it so that the authority which appointed the committee can take appropriate decision in the matter. The Syndicate had therefore, the comptence to either accept the report of the Selection Committee or to take other appropriate decision in the matter. It is precisely because the Syndicate had that power, it resolved to re-advertise the post instead of accepting the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The action taken by the Syndicate cannot therefore, be characterised as being contrary to law.