SUBHASH CHANDER LOHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a declaration that Clause (iv) of sub Rule 1 of Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 2006 (for brevity 'the Rules) is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution in as much as it clothes any one of the nominee of the Vice Chancellor or nominee of Commissioner of Higher Education to record a dissenting note in the proceedings of the Selection Committee which is considered to be binding. A further prayer made is that resolution dated 13.11.2001 (P.3) passed by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (for brevity 'the University') be also quashed being arbitrary and without jurisdiction; and still further prayer made is for granting the Petitioner all consequential relief.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that Chhotu Ram Kisan College, Jind (for brevity 'the College') advertised one post of Principal on 17.7.2008 (P.1). The service conditions of the employees of the affiliated colleges are governed by statutory rules called the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service ) Act, 1979 and the rules framed thereunder. Rule 7(1) contemplates that recruitment to the post of Principal is to be made by the Selection Committee comprising of eight members. The case of the Petitioner is that the Committee comprises of four experts and four administrative members. After going through the selection process, the Selection Committee has selected the Petitioner at serial No. 1 in order of merit. However, the 8th member, who is a nominee of the Commissioner of Higher Education, had remarked in the Selection Committee Proceedings vide his note that no candidate was found suitable and the post be re-advertised. Accordingly appointment has not been approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education (P.5) as well as by the University. The Petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 17121 of 2008 which was disposed of on 26.9.2008 being premature. He was given liberty to approach the Court by placing the order of the Government disapproving his appointment (P.4). Eventually under the Right to Information Act,2005 the Petitioner was able to secure a copy of the order dated 15.1.2008 (P.6). It is from the aforesaid letter that the Petitioner came to know that the University did not approve the selection of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also placed on record letter dated 27.1.2009 (P.5) to the effect that the Commissioner did not approve the proceedings. The Petitioner has prayed that the nominee of the Commissioner of Higher Education has been given power to veto the views of the Selection Committee and the power is unguided, unbridled and arbitrary.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement and has conceded the broad factual position. However their only stand is that according to Clause (iv) of sub Rule 1 of Rule 7 of the Rules, the nominee of the Commissioner of Higher Education or nominee of the Vice Chancellor are entitled to record a dissenting note and the proceedings of the Selection Committee cannot be approved thereafter by the University or the Commissioner and the post has to be re-advertised.