M RAMA RAO Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Raghuvir, J., dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, one Dr. M. Rama Rao, under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the resolution of the Board of Management dated 23rd June, 1977 selecting the 3rd respondent as a Senior Scientist (Horticulture) in preference to the appellant who was ranked No. 1 in order of preference by the Selection Committee appointed for the purpose of selecting suitable candidate for the post advertised. Dr. M. Rama Rao, at the date when he offered himself as a candidate for the post, was working as an Associate Professor in Horticulture in Sri Venkateswara Agricultural College, Tirupati. The 3rd respondent who also bears the same name, Dr. Rao M. Rama Rao, was working as Associate Professor in Horticulture, Agricultural College, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. For the purpose of selecting a suitable person, the post was advertised in January, 1977 and a Selecting Committee, consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, Dean of Agriculture and Dr. G. S. Randhawa, Director of the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research, Bangalore, with the Registrar as the Secretary, was appointed. This Committee, presided over by the Vice-Chancellor of the Agricultural University, interviewed seven candidates and selected in order of preference the appellant, Dr. M. Rama Rao, giving him the first rank and giving the second rank to the 3rd respondent, Dr. Rao Rama Rao. The Committee accordingly made its recommendation to the Board of Management. The Board of Management, it would appear, had appointed an Appointment Sub-Committee and the Appointment Sub-Committee considered the recommendations made by the Selection Committee at its meeting held on 16th June, 1977 "and recommended that S. No. 2 will be placed at S. No. 1 and vice versa in view of his much longer experience of No. 2 if Horticulture." With this note on theirs, the matter was placed before the Board of Management for consideration and decision. The Board of Management at its meeting held on 23rd June, 1977, which was attended by the Vice- Chancellor and twelve other members and the Registrar, the Secretary of the Board of; Management, passed a resolution resolving that the recommendations of the Appointment Sub-Committee be approved. Three members of the Board of Management, namely, Sri T. N. R. Rao, Dr. Ch. Krishna Moorthy and Sri Gurudas, expressed their dissent and also later gave reasons for differing from the majority of the members of the Board of Management. Since the Board of Management had resolved to appoint the 3rd respondent in preference to the appellant who was ranked No. 1 by the Selection Committee, the appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the resolution and also prayed that the 2nd respondent, namely, the Vice-Chancellor, who is the Chairman of the Board, may be directed to appoint him to the post in question. Raghuvir, J., dismissed the writ petition on the ground that "the Act reposes the power and authority in the Board of Management in full measure and the Board is the final arbiter and puts their seal to the order of appointment."

(2.) Mr. Shiv Shanker, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended that the impugned resolution of the Board of Management as also the recommendation made by the Appointment Sub-Committee is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Statutes of the University. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is not open either to th& Appointment Sub-Committee or the Board of Management to change the ranking given by the Selection Committee on the basis of the remarks obtained by each candidate at the interview, and therefore, the resolution is. liable to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Babulu Reddy, the learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, strenuously contended that the Board of Management is the ultimate authority and it acted within its limits of authority when it selected No. 2 in preference to No. 1 for good reasons. It is also Mr. Babulu Reddy's case as well as Mr. Appa Rao's who is appearing for the 3rd respondent that the Appointment Sub-Committee, which was constituted by the Board of Management in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the provisions of the Act, to make its recommendation as to the suitability or fitness of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee and the Appointment Sub- Committee, felt that No.2 was a fit and proper person and, therefore, the impugned resolution is a valid one passed in accordance with the requirement of the provisions of the Act and the Statutes.