VEENA KUMARI, ADVOCATE Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Veena Kumari is an advocate and she claims herself to be member of Lawyers Initiative c/o High Court Bar Association, High Court Premises, Chandigarh. In her individual capacity she has filed the present writ petition against respondents No. 1 to 8 in the nature of quo warranto and has prayed for quashment of the selection of respondents No. 2 to 4 since they have been issued appointment letter for the posts of Lecturer/Reader, which, according to the petitioner, was never advertised and that the selection itself was not free from arbitrariness. It has also been prayed by the petitioner that the appointments of respondents No. 5 to 9, who were recommended by the Selection Committee against the post of Lecturer/Reader be also quashed as those recommendations are violative of the mandatory provisions of the University Regulations.

(2.) In para No. 4 of the writ petition it has been averred by the petitioner that she is filing the present writ petition in the nature of quo warranto against the selection of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 who have since been appointed against the posts which were never advertised. Their selection is without following the lawful procedure and they have become usurper of the public office of Lecturer of Political Science in the Department of Correspondence Courses. The material illegality Committed by the University i.e. respondent No. 1 is that respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have been appointed even though the posts of Lecturers of Political Science in the Department of Correspondence Courses were not advertised. As per Regulation 4 Chapter 5(A) of the University Calendar Vol. I, whenever there is a vacancy in the post of a teacher, the post shall be advertised and applications invited before the vacancy is filled. It has been further averred that four posts of Lecturers of Political Science in the Department of Political Science, Panjab University were advertised vide advertisement No. 4/98. Last date for submission of application was 20.7.1998 which was extended by few days. According to the advertisement Annexure P-1 only 4 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised of the Department of Political Science alone. Vide this advertisement one post of Reader in the Department of Political Science was advertised and 3 posts of Readers were advertised in the Department of Correspondence Studies. The grievance of the petitioner is that the statutory regulations of the University Calendar i.e. Regulations 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 had not been complied with. We will deal with this aspect of the case in the subsequent portion of this judgment. But for the moment we would like to continue with the grievance of the petitioner who averred that the Selection Committee had Prof. Ashwani Roy and Prof. Randhir Singh as outside experts. There is no dispute about Prof. Ashwani Roy being an outside expert. But there is lot to say about his impartiality and fairness in the selection. The other outside expert Prof. Randhir Singh has been a visiting Professor in the faculty of the Department of the Political Science, Panjab University, Chandigarh for the last 4 to 5 months prior to his being nominated as a subject expert from outside on the Selection Committee. He was being remunerated by the Panjab University. He was also residing in Chandigarh during the said period. He could not by any stretch of imagination be considered a subject expert outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University as is clearly the requirement of Regulation 6.1. The inclusion of Prof. Randhir Singh as an outside subject expert renders the constitution of the Selection Committee illegal, being violative of the mandatory provisions of Regulations 6.1 and 6.3 and, therefore, all the recommendations made by the Selection Committee are illegal. Otherwise, one of the selected candidates namely Pompa Mukherjee had been a student of Prof. Ashwani Roy at JMU. Shri Ashutosh Kumar was selected as Reader and he was the student of Prof. Randhir Singh. Smit. Anupama Roy was appointed as Lecturer and she is the wife of Shri Ujjwal Kumar Singh, Reader in the Department of Political Science. Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, who was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, is a student of Shri Bhupinder Brar, Chairman, Department of Political Science and Member of the Selection Committee. Navjot was appointed as Lecturer and she is doing Ph. D. with Smt. Rashmi Sudha Puri, wife of the Vice-Chancellor. Shri Surinder Shukla, appointed as a Reader, has been a student of Prof. M.M. Puri, Vice-Chancellor and Chairman of the Selection Committee. It was further averred by the petitioner by highlighting the second irregularity that specialization given in the advertisement for various posts was given up by the Selection Committee. As per the advertisement for the post of lecturer in the Department of Political Science, first post was for the subject specialization of Modern Indian Political Thoughts/Political Theory. The next posts was for the subject specialization of Comparative Politics, the third and fourth posts were subject specialization of International Relation and the selected candidates do not have the advertised subject specialization. The Selection Committee has given special consideration to non-Ph.D. candidates. Among the 7 selected to the post of Lecturer, only one candidate had completed his Ph.D. All other were struggling with their Ph.D.

(3.) It was further pleaded that the interview was conducted by the Selection Committee on 11.12.1999. The result was published after the syndicate meeting held in December, 1999. The selected candidates joined their duties promptly in December, 1999. Further it was pleaded that 7 members of the Selection Committee were supposed to have attended the meeting, but only 6 have signed the minutes of the meeting.