ANIL KUMAR Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR RUHILKHAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ petitions which are being decided by this judgment involve common question of law and facts. Writ Petition No. 1889S of 1989 (Anil Kumar Pandey v. Vice-Chancellor) has been filed on the following facts

(2.) PETITIONER says that a post of lecturer in Organic chemistry had fallen vacant in Hindu College, Moradabad which is a duly recognised institution and is governed by the provisions of the U. P. Higher Education Service Commission Act. The committee of management of the College wanted to fill up the vacancy on ad-hoc basis under section 16 of the Commission Act after obtaining permission from the director of Higher Education. The post was duly advertised as required under the law. The petitioner along with 12 candidates applied for the said post in pursuance of the advertisement notice. After interviewing the candidates, the petitioner was selected as the best candidate and was placed at serial no. 1 in the list of the selected candidates, by the selection committee. Copy of the recommendation of the selection committee is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The recommendation of the selection committee was approved by the Committee of Management by its resolution dated 28-12-188. Copy of the said resolution is annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Principal of the College appears to have sent the papers with regard to the selection of the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor which is reflected by a copy of the letter contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner has said that he has joined the post and started functioning. The Vice Chancellor did not grant approval but informed verbally to the petitioner that his appointment was cancelled. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the Chancellor. The petitioner also made a representation to the principal and Registrar of the University for issuing appointment order in his favour, copy of the request letters are contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ Petition. The Vice Chancellor's disapproval has resulted in non payment of salary to the petitioner. It is stated that University authority was interested in the appointment of Sri Raj Kumar Jain who was placed in the selection list at serial no. 2, below the petitioner. The order of the Vice Chancellor, withholding the approval of the petitioner's appointment is challenged as being without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Vice Chancellor has no say in the matter, therefore his disapproval would not effect the petitioner's right to continue in service and get salary. The petitioner's salary has been illegally withheld under the invalid and unjust order which is totally arbitrary. The petitioner seeks quashment of Vice Chancellor's order whereby he has not approved his appointment which was communicated to the petitioner on 17-3-1989. The petitioner seeks mandamus for payment of salary.

(3.) A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner submitted that he obtained a doctrate degree, therefore, it is not necessary for him to have a good academic record. The selection committee after considering the case of the petitioner found him suitable for the post, therefore, his name was recommended. The managing committee accepted the recommendation and now it cannot turn down the recommendation and say that the selection made by the selection committee is bad. The petitioner says that he joined the duties on 2-1-1989 in pursuance of the direction given by the committee of management. It it asserted that he was continuously functioning on the post in question and has produced Annexures R.A. 2, 3 and 4, photo state copies of peon book and the attendance register. It is stated that adhoc appointment was to be made under section 16 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act and not under the State Universities Act or the Statute of the Rohilkhand University. The petitioner stated that he had worked in the institution in question for more than three years, therefore, he is entitled to draw the salary. The petitioner states that the University was interested in the appointment of Sfi Raj Kumar Jain, therefore, he was appointed. However, his appointment was to continue only till June, 1989. The Vice Chancellor's order impugned in this writ petitioner is said to be without juisdiction. The petitioner was not given any notice about the disapproval of his appointment by the Vice Chancellor.