GAURI SHANKER DWIVEDI Vs. AUTHORISED CONTROLLER AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KANHAIYA Lal Basant Lal Post Graduate College. Mirzapur in short 'the College' is a recognised and aided Post Graduate College, affiliated to the Purvanchal University, which has admittedly adoptee the First Statute of the Gorakhpur University. The College is at present being "managed by a duly appointed Authorized Controller. It appears that applications were invited by the Authorised Controller for ad hoc appointment of a lecturer in English against a substantive vacancy, in the manner indicated in Section 16 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980 due to failure of the Commission to recommend names of suitable candidates within three months from the date the vacancy was notified to it under Sub -section (2) of Section 12 of the said Act. In all 13 candidates applied for appointment on the post in question and with a view to select a suitable candidate from amongst the applicants a Selection Committee consisting of Sri P. Ram, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/Authorised Controller, Dr. Narsingh Srivastava, Professor and Head of English Department, Gorakhpur University and Sri Abdul Hassan Beg, Head of English Department and Officiating Principal of the College, was constituted. Dr Narsingh Srivastava was the expert of the subject nominated by the Vice -Chancellor of the Purvanchal University. The Selection Committee met on 1 -4 -1991. The petitioner and six others including 4th respondent were among the candidates who appeared before the Selection Committee for interview. The authorised Controller possibly in the belief that the approval of the Vice -Chancellor might be necessary, sent the recommendation of the Selection Committee and other connected papers to Vice -Chancellor vide letter dated 12 -4 -1991 for the approval. The Vice -Chancellor in the purported exercise of his power under Section 31(8)(b) of the State Universities Act, 1973 accorded approval vide letter dated 13 -4 -1991 to the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendations of the subject expert and also the Head of the Department even though the Authorised Controller had recommended the 4th respondent. Appointment letter dated 16 -4 -1991 was accordingly issued in favour of the petitioner by the Authorised Controller of the College and in pursuance thereof the petitioner gave his joining report to the Principal on 16 -4 -1991. The 4th respondent represented to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. The representation was allowed by the Chancellor vide order dated 7 -5 -1991 on the ground that the approval of the Vice -Chancellor was not necessary for an ad hoc appointment under Section 16 of the Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980. The Chancellor cancelled the Vice -Chancellor's order dated 12 -4 -1991 and declared the approval given by the Vice -Chancellor as redundant and unnecessary and observed that the management should keep in mind the provisions contained in para 3 of the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1983 in making appointment under Section 16 of the Act. The authorised Controller thereafter by his order dated 31 -5 -1991 cancelled the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner made vide letter dated 15 -4 -1991. The petition in hand seeks the quashing of this order as also the order dated 7/8 -5 -1991 of the Chancellor under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Sri S.P. Singh for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh for the Authorised Controller and Sri R.N. Singh for the respondent Km. Seema Sakar.

(3.) AS regards the order dated 31 -5 -1991 the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the authorised Controller was not justified in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner made vide letter dated 16 -4 -1991 merely because the approval given by the Vice -Chancellor was cancelled and declared redundant. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appointment order dated 16 -4 -1991 was issued by the Authorised Controller not on an independent exercise of his discretion but on account of the imperatives of approval given by the Vice -Chancellor vide order contained in letter dated 12 -4 -1991 and, therefore, the Authorised Controller was well within his jurisdiction to cancel the appointment order when the order dated 12 -4 -1991 was declared by the Chancellor as redundant and unnecessary for an appointment under Section 16 of the Higher Education Service Commission Act, 1980.