SUDESH KUMAR Vs. H P KRISHI VISHVA VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are presently holding teaching posts in the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya (hereinafter called the respondent-university) On April 5, 1982 and Jan. 8, 1983, advertisements were issued by the respondent University inviting applications, inter alia, for one post of Professor of Soil Science and three posts of Chief Scientist. In response to the advertisements, petitioners 1 and 2 applied for the posts of Chief Scientists and petitioners 3 and 4 applied for the posts of Chief Scientist as well as for the post of Professor of Soil Science. In accordance with the procedure prescribed in statute 4.5 of the respondent-University, the applications of the petitioners were scrutinised by the screening Committee. The petitioners were then called for interview by the Selection Committee on May 18, 1983. The recommendations of the Selection Committee were placed before the Board of Management of the respondent-University (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for its approval on May 5, 1984, as per the provisions of statute 4.5. The Board decided not to consider/accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee and directed that the posts be re-advertised for making fresh selections, (Annexure P-13). The minutes of the meeting of the Board held on May 5, 1984 disclose that the recommendations of the Selection Committee, which were lying in a sealed cover, were not put up before the Board earlier on the direction of the Chancellor-fourth respondent) as contained in the telegram dt. May 27, 1983 (Annexure R-8) whereby it was ordered, inter alia, that no recruitment/appointment/promotion be made in the respondent-university till further orders and that cases regarding interviews held in the recent past might not be put up before the Board unless directed otherwise.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners herein as formulated at the preliminary hearing of the petition is two-fold, first that the fourth respondent had no power, authority and Jurisdiction to issue a direction of the aforesaid nature and such an ultra vires direction, even if issued could not have prevented the second respondent from discharging his statutory function to place the recommendations of the Selection Committee before the Board within a reasonable time and, secondly, that the Board was under a statutory duty to consider on merits the recommendations made by the Selection Committee and then decide whether or not to approve them and that the decision arrived at by the Board not to consider/accept the recommendations and to direct that the posts be re-advertised for making fresh selections without even considering those recommendations on merits is not in accord with and is contrary to the provisions of Statute 4.5. The petitioners have, therefore, sought the relief, inter alia, that a writ be issued directing the respondent-University to consider the recommendations made by the Selection Committee pursuant to the interviews held on May 18, 1983 and to grant its approval to such recommendations in accordance with law.

(3.) The petition is resisted on behalf of the respondent-university. The Registrar of the respondent-University has filed an affidavit-in-reply dt. Sept. 1, 1984 contesting the claim of the petitioners. In para 5 of the affidavit-in-reply, certain facts, which might have had a bearing on the issue of the direction by the fourth respondent, are set-out and a plea has been advanced that the fourth respondent, who is the Head of the respondent-University, has the power under S.8 of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to issue directions of the nature therein mentioned and that he was, therefore, competent to issue the impugned direction in exercise of such power and the second respondent was under a legal duty to obey the same. The stand of the respondent-University as set-out in the affidavit-in-reply further is that the Board had duly considered the whole matter in all its aspects at its meeting held on May 5, 1984 and that it arrived at the decision that it has reached in an objective manner and on relevant considerations and in the larger interest of the administration of the respondent-university. The fourth respondent was added as party respondent on Sept. 4, 1984 and has been duly served. No separate affidavit-in-reply has been filed by him or on his behalf.