HARIDAS NAMDEORAO RAWANKAR Vs. PUNJABRAO KRISHI VIDYAPEETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by six petitioners who were aspirants for selection to the post of Associate Professor in Agriculture chemistry. The respondent No. 1 University under its advertisement dated 30th july, 1990, inter-alia, advertised three posts of Associate Professor in agriculture chemistry. Out of the said three posts, one post was reserved for scheduled caste category, one for scheduled tribe category and one was an open post. All the petitioners, who are six in number, were to compete for open post. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were eligible and qualified for being appointed in the post of Associate Professor in Agriculture Chemistry. Section 58 of the maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") lays down that no person shall be appointed by the University as a member of the academic staff, except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes made in that behalf. Statute 74 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Statutes, 1990 provides that all appointments of the members of academic staff shall be made by the Vice-Chancellor strictly on merit and no person shall be appointed by the vice-Chancellor as a member of the academic staff except on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under section 58 (2) of the Act and Statute 75. Statute 75 provides for composition of Selection committee for selecting the candidates. The Selection Committee comprises of (i) Vice-Chancellor; (ii) one Director of University by rotation; (iii) Member of executive Council representing Indian Council of Agriculture Research; (iv) One dean of University by rotation; and (v) Three outside Experts to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, who have special knowledge of the subject for which the academic staff member is to be selected. Clause (2) of Statute 75 lays down the quorum and it provides that not less than four members shall form a quorum of whom at least two shall be outsiders having special knowledge of the subject for which the academic staff member is to be selected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the very meeting of the Selection Committee wherein the respondent No. 2 came to be selected was not properly constituted for making selection to the post of Associate professor in Agriculture Chemistry and in the absence of quorum, in law, there was no meeting of the Selection Committee, it is brought to our notice that the meeting of the Selection Committee was attended by only three persons which included Dr. P. W. Amin, Vice-Chancellor, Dr. R. R. Sinha, Director of extension and one outside expert member, viz. Dr. S. B. Deshpande, Senior scientist, National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Used Planning. The other two outside expert members were not present in the meeting of the Selection committee held on 16th November, 1990. It is contended that on this count alone, the selection made by the said Committee stands vitiated.

(3.) THIS factual position is not in dispute. The Return filed by the University assigns reasons for the non-attendance of two outside expert members when the selection Committee met. With a view to justify the selection made by the selection Committee, it is stated in paragraph 10 of the Return that all the relevant record including the bio-data of the applicants who appeared for interview, which was placed before the Selection Committee, was sent to Dr. Verma for his remarks in the matter of selection of the candidates interviewed by the Selection Committee in his absence on 16-11-1990. It is stated that Dr. Verma, on going through all the relevant record in the matter, has accorded his consent to the recommendation made by the Selection Committee in order of merit.