RAMSINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF SAUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the resolution passed by the Executive Council of the University of Saugar dated 19th December 1971 (Annexure B) be quashed.

(2.) THE relevant facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Lecturer in Zoology in the Saugar University on 5th January 1949 and he has been serving that University since then. Ke was conferred the degree of Ph. D. in 1957 by the Saugar University and he was also conferred another Ph. D. degree in 1962 by the Cambridge University. THE petitioner was made a Reader in the Saugar University in the year 1968. In 1971 for one year he went as Reader to Jiwaji University during which period he was on leave in the Saugar University. A permanent post of Professor in Zoology is vacant in the Saugar University. On 31st May 1971 by an advertisement (Annexure A) applications were invited for various posts including the post of Professor in Zoology. THE petitioner applied for the said post. One Dr. Bhargava who is also a Reader in Zoology in the Saugar University also applied for that post. THEre were other applicants also. THE selection to the post of Professor is made by a Selection Committee constituted under section 47-A of the University of Saugar Act, 1946. A meeting of the Selection Committee was held on 4th December 1971. That meeting was attended by six members. Five candidates were interviewed by the committee. By a majority of five to one the committee recommended that the petitioner be appointed as Professor in the department of Zoology in the University. One member alone dissented from this recommendation as he felt that Dr. Bhargava should be appointed. THE recommendation of the committee is contained in Annexure B. This recommendation was considered by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting on 19th December 1971 and it was resolved that "the recommendation of the Selection Committee be not accepted as its acceptance would lead to administrative and disciplinary complications". This is the resolution which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) THE rival contentions mainly relate to the construction of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 47-A which we have earlier quoted. It may first be examined whether the Selection Committee is bound to recommend more than one person in every case. It is true that sub-section (3) uses the words