SUDHIR CHANDRA Vs. CHANCELLOR, ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY, LUKHNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the Chancellor's order dated 7th July, 1982. (Annexure V). He also prays for quashing the Registrar's order dated 13th July, 1982. Some other ancillary reliefs have also been claimed.

(2.) The petitioner was a lecturer in the Botany Department of Allahabad University. On 6-9-80 an advertisement appeared in Northern India Patrika inviting applications for filling in two posts of Readers in the Department of Botany in Allahabad University. For the sake of brevity henceforth the words 'University' and 'department' will be used by me for the expression University of Allahabad and department of botany, respectively. One of the two posts advertised was permanent and the other temporary. Since the petitioner possessed the minimum qualifications required for the post, he also applied along with the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Admittedly, the candidates were interviewed by a duly constituted selection committee and on 27th Feb. 1981 it made a recommendation in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. According to the priority fixed by the Selection Committee, the respondent No. 4 was placed at S. No. 1 and the petitioner was placed at S. No. 2 for the two posts. This recommendation of the selection committee was later accepted by the Executive Council on 14th March, 1981. The second post of the Reader, though it was initially advertised as temporary, had become permanent in the meanwhile due to the resignation of one of the permanent Readers in the department. The post was filled by appointing the petitioner as permanent Reader. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 both joined their services from 15th March, 1981. It is alleged that the period of probation expired on 14th April, 1982 and the petitioner has since been confirmed as Reader in the department in the University for which a letter of confirmation dated 16th April, 1982 (Annexure II to the petition) was also issued by it.

(3.) The respondent No. 3 who was also one of the candidates for the two posts, feeling aggrieved by the recommendation of the selection committee and its subsequent acceptance by the Executive Council made a representation to the Chancellor under S. 68 of the U. P. State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).