J P KULSHRESHTHA Vs. CHANCELLOR ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . J.P. Kulshreshtha and three other Lecturers in the English Department of the University of Allahabad have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the selection and appointment of Dr. Mrs. Hemlata Joshi and five others to the posts of Reader in the English Department of the University.

(2.) IN October 1970, six posts of Readers in the English Department of the Allahabad University were advertised. The petitioners, as well as respondents Nos. 5 to 10, Dr. Mrs. Hemlata Joshi, H.S. Saxena, Dr. R.R. Dutt, I.N. Agarwal, A.K. Bhattacharya and Dr. L.M. Upadhya, who were also Lecturers in the University in English Department, applied for the same. A number of other candidates from outside also applied for the same in the prescribed form. A Selection Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Allahabad University Act, 1921, and the Statutes and Ordinances framed thereunder. The Selection Committee decided to interview the candidates who had applied for appointment to the post of Reader. On 1st March, 1973, the Selection Committee interviewed candidates at Allahabad. The petitioners and other candidates including respondents Nos. 5 to 10 were called for interview. Petitioner No. 2 Skand Gupt, did not appear before the Selection Committee as in his opinion the interview was without any authority of law. Dr. A.K. Bhattacharya, respondent No. 9, had also indicated his disinclination to appear for the interview but later he appeared before the Selection Committee for Viva Voce test. The Selection Committee recommended Dr. Mrs. Hemlata Joshi, Servasri H.S. Saxena, R.R. Dutt, I.N. Agarwal, A.K. Bhattacharya and L.M. Upadhya, respondents Nos. 5 to 10, for appointment to the six posts of Readers. Petitioner No. 2, Skand Gupt, made a representation to the Executive Council challenging the legality of the selection. The Executive Council accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee at its meeting held on 17th March, 1973. Consequently respondents Nos. 5 to 10 were appointed Readers. Thereafter the petitioners approached the Chancellor under Section 42 of the Allahabad University Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and submitted their representation against the appointment of respondents Nos. 5 to 10. The Chancellor by his order dated 22nd November, 1973, which was communicated to the petitioners on 15th December, 1973, upheld the selection and appointment of the said respondents and rejected the petitioners representation. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by means of this petition challenging the validity of the selection and appointment of the respondents. They have claimed relief for quashing the order of the Chancellor dated 22nd November, 1973, and the resolution of the Executive Council dated 17th March, 1973, appointing the respondents as Readers and the recommendations of the Selection Committee. They have further claimed a relief of mandamus directing the Executive Council and the University to make appointments in accordance with law.

(3.) SECTION 29 of the Act lays down that teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the powers and functions of the Selection Committee are prescribed by the Statutes framed under Secs. 30 and 31 of the Act. Statutes 125 to 145 have been framed regulating the selection and appointment of teachers. In pursuance of Section 32 (2) (f) of the Act, Ordinances have been framed prescribing qualifications for the appointment of teachers in the University. Ordinance 9 (2) prescribes qualifications for appointment of teachers in the Faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce and Law. The relevant portion of Ordinance 9 which prescribes qualifications for appointment of Readers is in the following terms:-