NAGENDRA KUMAR PANDEY Vs. CHANCELLOR LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by two persons, who were participants in the selection proceedings held by the Lucknow University for appointment on the post of Professor in the subject of Experimental Solid State Physics in the De partment of Physics, Lucknow University, Lucknow, wherein the respondent No. 4 was also one of the candidates considered for appointment challenge the two orders passed by the Chancellor, viz. one passed on a reference under Section 31 (8) (a) of the State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and the other passed on the representation preferred by the petitioners under Section 68 of the Act. All the three persons, namely, the two petitioners and respondent No. 4 were working as Reader in the Department of Physics.

(2.) THE Selection Committee under Section 31 (4) of (he Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for the sake of brevity) was constituted. Three experts were nominated by the Chancellor. The Selection Committee interviewed eight candidates but recommended only one candidate, namely, Dr. (Mrs.) Poonam Tandon, respondent No. 4. The Selection Committee stated as under: "after considering the academic record, research, publications, teaching experience as also experience of research supervision, and overall perfor mance of the candidates at the interview, the Committee resolved to recom mend the following for appointment to the post of one Professor of Physics (Specialization in Experimental Solid State Physics) (Unreserved ). "

(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Chancellor shows that he has re corded his opinion about non- applicability of the provisions of Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act in the instant case as according to him the aforesaid provision would only be attracted when ttiere is a clear and specific disagreement of the Executive Council to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and such specific disagreement of the Executive Council is not present in this case, as only certain members were of the view that the respondent No. 4 was not pos sessed of the requisite qualifications.