V K AGGARWAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a lecturer of Hindustani Music (Instrumental) in the Faculty of Music and Fine Arts of the University of Delhi challenges the selection of respondents 3 and 4 in the order of preference for the post of a Reader in the Hindustani Music (Instrumental) in the said Faculty for which the petitioner was also a candidate.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner has been a lecturer of Hindustani Music (Instrumental) in the said Faculty since 1960. In February 1971 the University invited applications, inter alia, for the post of a Reader in Hindustani Music (Instrumental) through an advertisement in the press specifying certain "general" and "desirable" qualifications. The petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 were candidates for the post. All of them were interviewed by the Selection Committee. The interview consisted of two parts viz. viva voce and practical. The Selection Committee recommended to the Executive Council of the University that respondent No. 3 be appointed to the post. The Committee further recommended that in case respondent No. 3 was unable to accept the post it may be offered to respondent No. 4. The recommendation was accepted by the Executive Council, which decided to appoint respondent No. 3 to the post, and resolved that in case respondent No. 3 was unable to accept it it be offered to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 accepted the post, was appointed to it pursuant to the aforesaid decision and has since been functioning in that capacity.

(3.) The proceedings of the Selection Committee and the consequential selection and appointment were sought to be assailed on two grounds. In the first instance, it was contended that the proceedings of the Selection Committee were vitiated on account of the indifference of the Vice Chancellor and the Pro-Vice Chancellor and in their absence the process of selection was virtually left to the two experts, who were nominated by the academic council, and one of whom was not an expert in the field of instrumental music. Secondly, it is urged that both the experts were deeply interested in the selection of the respondents 3 and 4 to the post because of their close and deep personal connection which had and was calculated to impair their impartiality.