AVNISH CHANDRA Vs. CHANCELLOR ROHIL KHAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Chancellor of the Rohil Khand University allowing the reference under sction 68 of the Universities Act prefereed by Km. Chandna Das respondent no. 4.

(2.) IN brief, a post of Lecturer in Zoology in Hindu College Moradabad, {hereinafter referred as the College) as associate College of the Rohil Khand University, fell vacant and an adhoc appointment was to be made under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The post was advertised. Dr. Avinash Chandra, the petitioner and Km. Chandna Das were also candidates for the post. The Selection Committee placed the respondent no 4 at SI. no. 1 and the petitioner at SI. no. 2. According to the petitioner the respondent no. 4 did not fulfill the essential qualification required for appointment as a Lecturer. He made a representation to the Managing Committee of the College. The Managing Committee appointed the petitioner vide order dated 12-10-88. The approval for this appointment was given by the Vice-Chancellor vide order dated 15th October, 1988. Being aggrieved against this order, Km. Chandna Das, respondent no. 4 preferred a reference under section 68 of the Universities Act to the Chancellor. By the impugned order this reference was allowed. The Chancellor set-aside the approval accorded by the Vice-Chancellor in favour of the petitioner and ordered the respondent no. 4 to be appointed on the post. Being aggrieved Dr. Avinash Chandra has filed this petition.

(3.) THE Chancellor in the impugned order was of the opinion that the appointment was made under section 16 of the Act and not under section 31 of the Universities Act and that the provisions of section 31 of the Universities Act will not be applicable in the instant case. He however, relied on statutes 10.01 (2) and was of the opinion that the respondent no. 4 had, therefore, requisite qualification and the recommendation of the Selection Committee should have been accepted. Accordingly he was also of the opinion that there was no occasion for the Managing Committee for sending the papers for approval to the Vice Chancellor under section 31 (8) (b) of the Universities Act and by acting so the Managing Committee acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction. He accordingly, allowed the reference