(1.) K. C. Bhargava, J. All the aforemen tioned writ petitions relate to the same con troversy involving similar question of facts and law regarding reservation for the post of Professors, hence these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE facts, in short, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions, are that one post of Professor in Political Science, one post of Professor in the department of Sanskrit, one post of Professor in Medieval and Modern History, one post of Professor in the depart ment of Applied Economics fell vacant be tween June 1989 to September, 1993. For filling up all these posts Lucknow Univer sity issued an advertisement No. 5/1993, copy of which is contained in Annexure-1, giving the number of posts required in dif ferent departments. In pursuance of this advertisement applications were invited from the eligible candidates. Last date for submission of application Forms was 20th October, 1993. Interview letters for these posts were issued sometimes in March 1994 and the interview of the candidates took place between 4. 4. 94 to 22. 4. 94 by the Selec tion Committee. The Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor for placing the same before the Executive Council, who had to approve these selections and there after appointment letters are issued. But before these proceedings could be placed before the Executive Council of the Univer sity, an Ordinance No. 5/94 was issued on 11. 2. 94 by the State Government for reser vation of the posts in the cadre of Profes sors, Readers and Lecturers. Thereafter this Ordinance was replaced by Act No. 4 of 1994, which notified on 23. 4. 94 and was given retrospective effect from 11th Decem ber, 1993. This Act is known as U. P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Clas ses) Act 1994, (here in after called the Act ).
(3.) IN the writ petitions it is alleged that the Selection Committee was duly con stituted in accordance with the provisions of U. P. State Universites Act, 1973 and after coming into force Act No. 4 of 1994, the provisions of Ordinance No. 5 of 94 will not have any effect on the constitution of Selec tion Committee in view of Section 31 of the U. P. State Universities Act. It has been al leged that the panel of Experts is to be drawn by the Chancellor and the nomina tion of that Expert should be indicated in the panel. The panel was constituted by the Chancellor after coming into force the Act No. 4 of 1994, hence the Chancellor is now bound by his act and he cannot cancel the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. The provisions of Act No. 4 of 94 are not attracted in the present case in view of the judgment in INdra Sawhney v. Union of INdia, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217.