NIRMALA NAUTIYAL Vs. CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this petition pertains to the selection of candidates for making appointments to the post of Lecturer in Botany in the University of Lucknow.

(2.) IN the daily newspaper 'Pioneer' an advertisement appeard on 1-6-80, annexure 1, through which applications were invited by the Registrar of the Lucknow University for making appointments to two permanent and two temporary posts of Lecturers in Botany. IN pursuance of this advertisement, apart from others the three petitioners and the opposite parties 6 and 7 submitted applications. It appears from the proceedings of the selection committee Ex. 3 that as many as 118 candidates applied for the posts in question. Call letters were issued to all 118 candidates but at the time of interview only 52, candidates appeared. The committee recommended Dr. (Miss) Gopa Misra opposite party no. 6 and Dr. Ram Rakshpal Singh opposite party no. 7 for being appointed against the two temporary posts. The committee did not find any candidate suitable for appointment against the two permanent posts. The committee therefore recommended that for making selections for the two permanent posts, the posts may be re-advertised. The recommendations of the selection committee came up before the Executive Council of the Lucknow University on 13-6-81. The Executive Council did not agree with the recommendations of the selection committee. It was of the opinion that the recommendations were contradictory inasmuch as the two candidates had been recommended for appointment against the temporary posts and although the qualifications in respect of temporary and permanent posts were the same, no candidate had been recommended for appointment against the permanent posts. The committee, therefore adopted the resolution that the matter may be referred to the Chancellor for decision under section 31 (b) (a) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1974 with the recommendation that the posts be re-advertised. The selection committee expressed its reasons in the resolution as follows :-

(3.) THE writ petition has been contested only on behalf of Dr. (Miss) Gopa Misra and Dr. Ram Raksh Pal Singh. Neither the Chancellor nor the Lucknow University nor any of its officers have filed any counter affidavit to oppose the writ petition. Sri Umesh Chand who appeared for Dr. Gopa Misra and Dr. Ram Raksh Pal Singh submitted that under section 31 (8) of the Act the Chancellor has wide powers and the order actually passed by the Chancellor is not in excess of the jurisdiction conferred under the said provision. THE learned counsel further pointed out with reference to Annexure H-1 to the counter affidavit that the petitioners' claim of having better academic record than opposite parties 6 and 7 is not correct.