RADHESHYAM TRIPATHI Vs. AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH VISHWAVIDYALAYA REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges of the Division Bench, this petition has been referred to me to resolve the difference of opinion in this case. While B. C. Varma, J. is of the view that the petition should be allowed and the impugned orders Annexures C and E should be quashed rejecting the representation of the petitioner to include his name in the electoral roll of lecturers for electing their representative to the University Court, while according to Gulab Gupta, J. the petition ought to be dismissed firstly because it is an exercise in futility as the elections are over and no purpose can be served by now deciding this question and secondly the petitioner not being a Lecturer duly appointed as per requirements of law, he being an ad hoc lecturer or lecturer on probation, not entitled to be included in the voters' list. Only regular lecturers duly appointed can be included in the list.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya is a University constituted under M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. The various authorities of the University have been enumerated in Section 19 including the 'court'. Under Section 20 the Court shall consist of the persons enumerated in Groups A to E. Group B pertains to representatives of Principals, Professors, Readers and Lecturers. So far as present case is concerned, under Rule 20 (1) (xiv), 14 persons are to be elected by the Lecturers to the Court. Under Section 4 (xx) 'teachers of the University' means Professors, Readers, Lecturers and such other persons as may be appointed for imparting instructions or conducting research, with the approval of the Academic Council in the University or any College or Institution maintained or recognised by the University. Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya, Lalgaon, is a college affiliated to the respondent No. 1 University and is receiving grants-in-aid from M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog. Statute No. 25 prescribes the procedure for election of members to the Court. Under Clause 3, the Registrar is required to publish provisional list of electoral roll and circulate the same to the respective colleges. Under Clause 4, any Lecturer whose name has been omitted from the electoral roll may apply in the prescribed form for inclusion of his name. Under Clause 5 on such an application being received, the same has to be scrutinised by the committee consisting of 2 Deans to be nominated by the Kulpati and the Registrar, respondents 2 and 3. Against the order of the Scrutinising Committee, appeal lies to the Kulpati under Sub-clause (3 ). The election programme was, announced by the Registrar on 23-1-1984 and on the same day provisional electoral roll was exhibited and circulated. As the petitioner's name and names of 11 other Lecturers of the said College were missing from the electoral roll of Lecturers, he made an application for inclusion of his name. His application was forwarded to the Scrutinising Committee who held that only Lecturers regularly appointed as per the Adhiniyam are alone to be included in the electoral roll and not the ad hoc or irregular appointees. However, the Committee found difficulty in giving a final decision and referred the matter to the competent authority on 15-2-1984 which was the date of scrutiny. On the same day, the Registrar-respondent No. 3, also rejected the representation saying that since the appointment of the petitioner and the other 11 Lecturers were illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the rules framed thereunder, their names cannot be included in the electoral roll. The counting of votes was to take place on 7-4-1984 but in the meantime the present petition was filed and ad interim stay was obtained on 31-3-84 that elections may take place but result of the election from the Teachers' Constituency shall not be declared until further orders.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is M. A. in Sociology from Banaras University and got 1st Class in the examination held in 1977. He was appointed in Sudarshan Mahavidyalaya for imparting teaching in the subjects Sociology and Political Science. The University granted affiliation to the College in the year 1982-83 and 1983-84. Similarly, M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog have given grant-in-aid to the college. Therefore, the petitioner comes within the definition of 'teachers of University' and furthermore he is also drawing salary of a Lecturer as fixed by the University Grants Commission as required under Rule 63 (5) of the Adhiniyam. For all intended purposes, the petitioner is a Lecturer and he is entitled to vote and stand as a candidate from the Lecturers' constituency. As his name was found missing from the provisional electoral, roll, he submitted a representation for inclusion of his name but without deciding his representation, the Scrutinising Committee forwarded his representation to the competent authority without specifying who was that competent authority. It appears that his representation was referred to the Registrar who had no jurisdiction to decide the question about inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll and he wrongly rejected his representation. Since there was no valid order by the Scrutinising Committee, there was no question of filing any appeal. However, the petitioner made a representation to the Kulpati. The respondents in their return contended that under Clause 3 of Statute No. 25 the names of only those are to be included in the provisional voters' list who were functioning as Teachers on the date the election programme was announced i. e. 23-1-1984. Under Clause 16 (4) of Statute No. 28 (College Code), every change in the teaching staff of the College has to be immediately reported to the University by the Principal of the affiliated college. Under Statute No. 19, the University has to publish every year in the month of December seniority list of Professors, Readers, Lecturers etc. The name of the petitioner was not communicated to the University under Clause 16 (4) by the Principal before publication of the seniority list of 1983. Rightly, therefore, the petitioner's name did not find place in the provisional voters' list of Lecturers, but on 21-3-1984 the Principal of the College submitted two lists of its teaching staff one of those approved by the University and the other of those who were given ad hoc appointment and were then working on probation. The appointments to the colleges are now regulated by M. P. Ashaskiya Shikshan Sanstha Adhiniyam of 1978. Rules have been framed regulating the appointments. Under Rule 10, applications for vacancies to non-government colleges shall be invited in accordance with the provisions of the College Code framed under Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam. Under Rule 14 (1) for every non-government college for higher education, there shall be a selection committee consisting of Kulpati as Chairman and other members. So far as petitioner and 11 other Lecturers are concerned, the University was never intimated nor the posts were advertised as required under the rules. It appears that the Chairman of the Governing Body appointed these persons as he and the petitioner were interested in capturing the University Court. Therefore, bogus orders of appointment were issued. Under Clause 18 of the College Code, no person can be appointed as a full-time teacher in any of the colleges except with recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under the provisions of the Statute. In the petition the petitioner has not disclosed the date and the manner of his appointment but in the letter sent by the Principal on 23-1-84 his appointment has been shown as ad hoc from l-8-1983 (Annexure R. 4) While the petitioner in his representation (Annexure R. 5) gave the date of appointment as 8-7-1983 and the Chairman in his letter to the Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog gave the date of appointment as 2-11-1983. Therefore, the petitioner's appointment by the Chairman and not even by the Governing Body of the College was a dubious appointment and cannot be recognised. Of course, it was open to the Governing Body to appoint ad hoc Lecturers but that could be only for a term of six months in case of emergency. Ad hoc Lecturers have as such no lien on the post and not being regular appointees, they have no right to be included in the voters' list. Since the Scrutinising Committee did not have the record about the appointment of the petitioner as a Lecturer, they found difficulty and referred the matter to the Registrar who was then officiating as Kulpati also since the Kulpati had proceeded on leave. So the representation has been rejected by the Kulpati and is a valid and correct order. There is no contravention of any provision of law nor the petitioner's any right affected. The petitioner's appeal to the Kulpati was barred by limitation.