S L NAMDEO Vs. CHANCELLOR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU KRISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the order dated 2-1-1984 (Annexure-F), passed by inc. respondent No. 1 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner a Microbiologist.

(2.) THE facts of the case are within a narrow compass and are almost admitted. It appears that there are two posts of Microbiologists in Biological Nitrogen Fixation scheme of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Stale Plan Scheme for rhizobium Culture and Production. These posts were occupied by Dr. H. G. Sharma and Dr. B. G. Apte. The post occupied by Dr. Sharma fell vacant in July 1980 consequent upon his being shifted to Soil Test Crop Responses Scheme and it was decided to advertise this post. The Advertisement (Annexure-A) was, therefore, issued on 22-7-1980 inviting applications for the post. The advertisement required the following qualifications : -Ph. D. in Soil Science/agricultural Chemistry with specialization in Soil microbiology or published work of an equivalent high standard. Para 4 of the advertisement specified that 'the post is sanctioned under I. C A. R. Scheme for Biological Nitrogen Fixation The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 applied in pursuance, to this advertisement and were interviewed by the Selection committee. The Selection Committee was constituted by three eminent scientists of the country, viz. , (i) Dr. N, S. Subba Rao of Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New delhi, (ii) Dr. A. C. Gaur, Professor of Microbiology of Indian Agricultural Research institute, New Delhi and (iii) Dr. Santsingh, Emeritus Scientist of Institute of agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. The Selection Committee submitted is recommendations to the respondent No. 2 for their consideration. In the panel prepared by the Selection Committee, one Dr. L. N. Verma was shown at Serial No. 1 whereas, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 2. The recommendations of the selection Committee were approved by the Board of Management of the respondent no. 2 and consequently, the petitioner and Dr. L. N. Verma were appointed by an order dated 11-5-1982 (Annexure-B ). The respondent No. 3, who was one of the candidates, could neither be selected nor appointed. It appears that after the issue of the advertisement on 22-7-1980, Dr. B. G. Apte, who held the second post of microbiologist, retired on 31-8-1980 and, hence, the second post also fell vacant. Since on the date of appointment, two posts of Microbiologists were available. Dr. L. N. Verma and the petitioner were appointed against the aforesaid two posts. It may be mentioned that the second post vacated by Dr. Apte, was not advertised. It appears that the respondent No. 3 felt that the appointment of the petitioner against the second post, which was not advertised, was illegal and represented against the appointment to the respondent No. 1. The matter was examined by the respondent No. 1 under section 14 (2) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and it was felt that the advertisement being only for one post, appointment on the second post was in violation of Statute 6 (a) (i) of the University and, hence, the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the law. The respondent No. 1 also felt that the petitioner did not have a Ph. D. and his published work could not be equated with the Ph. D. Degree and, hence the appointment was illegal. The respondent No. 1, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as also to the Board of management on 2-5-1983 (Annexure-C) requiring them to show cause why the resolution of the Board of Management approving the appointment of the petitioner, be not annulled. It appears that the petitioner as also the Board of Mangement represented against the proposed annulment by submitting their separate replies. The Board of management, in their reply, admitted that the advertisement was for one post only, but submitted that it was not necessary for them to advertise the second post which had fallen vacant in the meantime. The respondent No. 1 on consideration of the representation, passed the impugned order dated 2-1-84 (Annexure-P ). annulling the resolution of the Board of Management dated 7-5-82 regarding the appointment of the petitioner to the second post of Soil Microbiologist. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order illegally and unjustifiably holds that published research papers of the petitioner were not of equivalent high standard and has, therefore, illegally held that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as a Microbiologist. It is further submitted that the advertisement (Annexure-A) did not specify the number of posts for which applications were invited and, hence, it should be read to cover all vacancies which might be available on the date of appointment. The learned counsel for the respondent university, however, supports the order on the ground that conclusions reached by the respondent No. 1 are not only correct, but are also otherwise just and fair in the context of facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted that the advertisement is clear and specific and relates to the post sanctioned under I. C. A. R. Scheme for Biological nitrogen Fixation, and, hence, the second post which was not advertised, could not have been filled. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in V. K. Seth v. State of M. P. 1980 M. P. LJ. 287.