KUSUM K BHATT DR Vs. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Nanavaty who appears on behalf of the petitioner has raised those very contentions before us. The first contention which he has raised is that the selection committee was under an obligation to state reasons for the recommendations which it made and that in so far as the selection committee did not state reasons in support of the recommendations which it made clauses (2) (3) and (4) of Statute 12 in the Second Schedule to the Gujarat University Act, 1949 were violated. According to him therefore the recommendations made by the selection committee were void and of no consequence.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contention which Mr. Nanavaty has raised it is necessary first to turn to sec. 47 of the Gujarat University Act, 1949 which is hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity. It inter alia provides that there shall be Committee for selection of different classes of full time teachers of the University including tutors and demonstrators. It further provides that no person shall be appointed as full time teacher of the University except on the recommendation of the committee. It next provides that the constitution of such Committees the term of office of members and the procedure to be followed by the Committees shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes. It was in pursuance of this statutory requirement that the University constituted the selection committee to which we have referred above. Under sec. 29 (1A) the Statutes framed by the Legislature have been incorporated in Schedule II. Statute 12 which is relevant for the purpose of the present case firstly provides:

(3.) The function of the Selection Committee is in terms of clause (2) of Statute 12 three fold. Its first duty is to investigate the merits of various candidates whom it interviews. Secondly it is required to report to the Executive Council names of persons whom it has selected. Thirdly it is required to arrange in order of merit the names of persons whom it recommends to the Executive Committee or the Executive Counsel Proviso to clause (2) of Statute 12 is not relevant for the purpose of the present case because it pertains to the selection for the post of a Professor. There is nothing in clause (2) of Statute 12 which requires the selection committee to state the reasons in support of its recommendations to the Executive Council.