NIRANJAN DAS Vs. CHANCELLOR, SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the Petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Register, Sambalpur University (opp. party No. 2) Jyoti Vihar, Burla on 13 -9 -1976, vide Annexure -1, for two posts of Readers in the Departmental of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering in the University College of Engineering, Burla. The qualifications prescribed were a first class Bachelor's Degree or Master's Degree in the subject, or a first class Bachelor's Degree and five years teaching experience for holders of Master's Degree. The Syndicate by its resolution No. 18 dated 29 -1 -1977 amended the qualifications and issued another advertisements, vide Annexure -2, prescribing a first class Master's Degree and published research work of equivalent standard with a minimum of seven years' experience out of which five years must be in teaching and/or research with specialisation in any field of the subject. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that those who applied in response to the earlier advertisement need not apply again. The Petitioner, who was then serving as a lecturer in Electronics and possessed a bachelor's Degree in Science (Hons.) and also in the subject, offered his candidature for the post and was called to the interview which was held on 26 -8 -1977. According to him, by then he had completed all the four parts of the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination. He had passed the first three parts and had submitted the dissertation for the final part, the result of which was published on 30 -12 -1977. The Selection Committee (for short the 'Committee') which consisted of three experts including the nominee of the Syndicate, recommended the name of the Petitioner for appointment as a Reader. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 27 -8 -1977 approved the recommendation of the Committee and resolved, vide Annexure -3, that the Petitioner may be appointed as a Reader in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering after he gets the M.Sc. (Engineering) Degree. On the same date and by the same resolution Shri G.S. Rath (opp. party No. 3) and Shri G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) were appointed as Reader in Electronics and Lecturer in Electronics respectively. Eight out of the sixteen members of the Syndicate were present on that day. According to the Petitioner, the Syndicate in its meeting held on 24 -9 -1977 attended by only five members, reconsidered the resolution in annexure -3, rejected the recommendation which had already been accepted on the earlier date (27 -8 -1977) and cancelled the appointment of the Petitioner, vide Annexure -4. This action of the Syndicate, according to the Petitioner, is illegal, without jurisdiction and in clear violation of Section 20(2) proviso of the Sambalpur University Act (for short the 'Act') which provides that if the Syndicate differs from the recommendation of the Committee, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. The Petitioners contention is that the Syndicate, who is the appointing authority, had already accepted the recommendation of the Committee and there was no recommendation before the Syndicate on 24 -9 -1977 to be accepted or rejected. If, however, the recommendation was still there on 24 -9 -1977 and the Syndicate differed from the selection on the question of minimum qualification prescribed in the advertisement, i.e. M.Sc. (engineering) Degree, it should have recorded the same and referred the matter to the Chancellor (opp. party No. 1) for final decision. Apart from this, when there was no item in the agenda of the Syndicate on 24 -2 -1977 regarding the reconsideration of the resolution dated 27 -8 -1977 and the absentee members had no notice of the desire of a few members to re -open the question, the resolution ipso facto is invalid. On the aforesaid grounds, the Petitioner has prayed to quash the resolution No. 589 dated 24 -9 -1977 (Annexure -4) of the Sambalpur University so far as it affects the Petitioner. He has also prayed for quashing the resolution of the Syndicate dated 16/12 -1 -1979 (Annexure -14) appointing opp. party No. 4 as a Reader in Electronics and his appointment letter as per Annexure -15 (this prayer has been added after the amendment). He has also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 directing them to issue an appointment letter to the Petitioner in termers of the resolution in Annexure. 3 and allow the Petitioner to retain his seniority as Reader and pass such other order/orders as deemed appropriate, to do justice to the Petitioner.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the Chancellor (opp. party No. 1) it has been stated that the recommendation of the Syndicate in respect of the Petitioner was not a recommendation but a pious wish as passing of his M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination was an uncertain event. The first resolution dated 27 -8 -1977 (Annexure -3) of the Syndicate was illegal and unconstitutional and it was corrected in the second resolution (Annexure. 4) dated 24.9.1977 (wrongly mentioned as 12.11.1977). Since Petitioner felt that in the second resolution the Syndicate differed from the recommendation of the Committee, he through a petition referred the matter for the decision of the Chancellor Under Section 20(2) of the Act. The Chancellor on receipt of the reference asked the University to show cause and after considering the matter as required Under Section 20(2) of the Act agreed that the Syndicate was justified in differing from the recommendation of the Committee, if at all the same was a recommendation vide Annexure -D/4, Shri G.P. Panda (opp. party No. 4) who was a candidate for appointment as a Reader in the subject and same students of the College objected to the appointment of the Petitioner and approached the Chancellor with petitions which were also disposed of along with the reference made by the Petitioner.

(3.) DR . Dash, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that as per the advertisement in Annexure -1 the Petitioner offered his candidature. In Annexure -2 it was made clear that candidates who applied in response to Annexure -1 need not apply again. Therefore, there was no question of Annexure -2 superceding Annexure -1, as contended by the opposite parties. The Petitioner was called to the interview, found suitable and recommended by the Committee which was accepted by the Syndicate vide its resolution in Annexure -3 subject to his passing the M.Sc. (Engineering) examination. There as no question of any pions wish as now contended by the opposite parties. The Petitioner's passing the M.Sc. (Engineering) Examination was not an uncertain event at all. In the semester system, the result of each semester is published after each examination and the fourth semester examination is only on a thesis prepared under a guide who is a teacher of the College. Regulation 11(i) of the Master of Science (Engineering) Examination (in Semester system) provide that a thesis or dissertation work shall be submitted before the end of the 4th semester (from 1st February to 31st July). The Syndicate in general and the Vice -Chancellor/Principal knew that, the Petitioner's results of 4th Semester were expected at any moment after July 1977. So he was called to the interview, selected by the Committee and appointed by resolution dated 27 -8 -1977 (annexure -3) of the Syndicate. There was absolutely no uncertainty. There was no question of the Petitioner's joining the college within one month of the appointment. It was only a question of upgradation of the Petitioner's status and salary. According to Dr. Dash, the Syndicate cannot by a subsequent resolution override an earlier decision taken by it. In such an even, it shall have to refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final. This having not been done, the resolution in annexure -4 is illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submitted that if the Petitioner had no requisite qualification for appointment as a Reader, opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 had also not the requisite qualification as per the advertisements. He pointed out that in spite of the order of injunction issued by this Court not to appoint any Reader, the University has appointed opp. party No. 4 as a Reader subsequent to the passing of such order.