SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. VIKRAM UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts giving rise to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are as follows:

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 - University was established under the Madhya Bharat Vikram University, Act, 1955 (herein -after referred to as the Act). The said University is now governed by the provisions of M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The petitioner has alleged that he was Research Scholar in the Urdu Department in the Madhav College, Ujjain, which is managed by the respondent No. 1 -University. The petitioner had applied for lecturer -ship of the University but his claim has been ignored. The respondents No. 2 to 10 were temporarily appointed to the pasts of lecturers in the Madhav College, Ujjain. The grievance of the petitioner is that they have not been selected by the selection committee appointed under S. 37 -A of the Act. According to the petitioner Madhav College was transferred to the respondent No. 1 - University in the year 1959 and thereafter the respondent No. 1 - University has appointed majority of the teachers and the employees. The respondents No. 2 to 10 were also appointed by the respondent No. 1 - University and they are being paid by the Vikram University. In the petition the petitioner has assailed the appointment and continuance in service of the respondents No. 2 to 10. However, at the hearing of the petition the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he has instructions not to challenge the appointment and continuance in service of the respondents No. 4 to 10 and the petition has been confined to the appointment and continuance in service of the respondents No. 2 and 3. The main grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that the appointments of the respondents No. 2 and 3 as lecturers in Urdu department of the Madhav College, Ujjain are not valid and they have no authority to hold the said office. The petitioner has prayed that the orders passed by the respondent No. I appointing the respondents 2 to 3 be set aside. In the return filed by the respondents it is contended that the Madhav College, Ujjain, originally belonged to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and its management was handed -over to the respondent No. 1 -University for a period of five years by agreement dated 16.3.59. According to the respondents the Madhav College, Ujjain is not maintained by the respondent No. 1 University and it is only a constituent college of the University and as the respondents were not appointed to any teaching posts of the University paid by the University the provisions of S. 37 A of the Act were not applicable and the respondents were duly appointed as lecturers of the Madhav College, Ujjain and the petitioner is not entitled to assail their appointments. It was also contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and that the petition should be dismissed on that ground also. It was further contended that the respondents No. 2 and 3 were appointed as far back as in the year 1968 and therefore the petition filed in the year 1979 should be dismissed on the ground undue delay. It was also contended that even if there was any illegality or irregularity in the appointments of the respondents No. 2 and 3 because they were not appointed on the recommendation of the committee of selection constituted in accordance with the provisions of S. 37 - A of the Act, their appointment shall not be deemed to be invalid because of the provisions of S. 37 of the Act It was also contended that in view of the provisions of the Adhiniyam the appointments of the respondents shall be deemed to have been made under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to question the legality of the appointments of the respondents.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were respectively appointed on 1 -8 -68 and 23 -9 -68 on temporary basis and they were confirmed with effect from 30 -4 -70 and 13 -4 -70 respectively. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. The respondents were thus appointed 11 years before the filing of the petition and they were confirmed 9 years before the filing of the petition. It is not in dispute that the respondents were appointed after following the procedure applicable for appointment of teachers in affiliated and constituent colleges as provided in statute No. 7 -B made under section 27 (h) of the Act. If the University erroneously thought that provisions of section 37 -A of the Act were not applicable and the appointments of teachers of the Madhav College, Ujjain were governed by Statute No. 7 -B and they were appointed after following the procedure laid down in that statute it cannot be said that the respondents are usurpers of office and they have no right to hold that office more particularly when they have been functioning and working as such for more than 11 years prior to the filing of the petition. It is, no doubt, true that there is material difference in the constitution of the Selection Committee as provided by section 37 -A of the Act and as envisaged by the Statute referred to above. But the fact remains that the respondents were appointed as lecturers after following the procedure laid down by Statute 7 -B. The posts were advertised. The respondents submitted applications and their cases were considered by the committee of selection and they were appointed after following the procedure applicable for the appointments of teachers to affiliated and constituent colleges of the University. In the circumstances if there was any irregularity in their appointments their appointments cannot be deemed to be invalid merely on account of such irregularity under the provisions of S. 37 of the Act which provides that "no act or/proceedings of an authority or other body of the University shall be deemed invalid by reason only of some defect in the constitution of the Authority or Body or by reason of the existence of a vacancy or vacancies among its members or the invalidity of the election of any of its members."