S.R.MEHROTRA Vs. H.P.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claiming to be a Professor and Chairman, Department of History of respondent No. 1 University, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging constitutional and legal validity of appointments of respondents No. 2 to 16 as lecturers in the respondent -University and seeks writ of quo -warranto and prohibition against them

(2.) The petitioner submits that the University is a body corporate under the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (referred to as the Act) and is governed by the provisions of the said Act, Statutes and Ordinances made thereunder. According to the petitioner, section 34 of the Act provides for a statutory Selection Committee for appointment of teachers in the University and the Executive Council can create teaching posts or make appointments to teaching posts only on the recommendations of this Committee as per Statute 11 (1) made under the Act. Referring to Ordinance 243 (b) (ii) made under the Act, it is submitted that no teaching and research posts can be created or abolished unless the Faculty concern takes a decision in that behalf and recommends the same to the Academic Council which in turn recommends the same to the Executive Council. It is further submitted that Ordinance No. 35 which concerns appointments to various teaching posts provides that appointment to a teaching post shall be made on the recommendation of a Selection Committee constituted by the competent authority and not otherwise. Ordinance 35.11 (b) further provides that whenever there is a vacancy to be filled by the direct recruitment, the same will be advertised not less than three weeks in advance in at least one leading daily newspaper clearly mentioning the eligibility qualifications and pay scale for the post. It is the case of the petitioner that these provisions of the Act, Statutes and Ordinance remain violated in case of appointments of respondents No. 2 to 16 and hence their appointments are void and liable to he quashed in public interest The petitioner also submits that respondents No. 4 to 15 were working as Research Associates in various departments of the University and were appointed as lecturers not by following the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid Act, Statutes and Ordinance but by re -designating the posts of Research Associates as lecturers. This, according to the petitioner, could not be done as it violated the provisions of Ordinance 35 applicable in such cases. As regards the appointments of respondent No. 2, it is alleged that she is a relation of erstwhile Vice -Chancellor of the University, and has been made lecturer against a non -existing post without following the procedure prescribed in law. Her appointment as Research Associate is also said to be against the law and only for a temporary period. Her regularisation as a lecturer is said to be not only contrary to the aforesaid legal provisions but also otherwise air act of favouritism. As regards respondent No 3, the petitioner alleges that she is also related to an important Head of the Department of the University and has been given the appointment not only contrary to the aforesaid legal provisions but also in violation of the decisions of the Executive Council itself. It is alleged that the Executive Council of the University in its resolution dated 16 -1 -1986 decided to appoint only Research Associates as lecturers against regular vacant posts and treated the cadre as a vanishing cadre but this resolution was subsequently changed on 30th May, 1986 treating the "Evaluators" as "Research Associates" and giving them same benefits which were earlier given to Research Associates only. This change was made contrary to law and is an act of favouritism. Similarly, the appointment of respondent No 16 is challenged on the ground that he has been appointed as lecturer in Public Administration in P, G. Centre of the University whereas the post was advertised for H. P. University Evening College, which is an under -graduate institution. This appointment is said to be in the department which did not exist at the relevant time and is illegal.

(3.) The respondents have challenged the locus standi of the petitioner and have submitted that he is only interested in seeking publicity for himself and disturbing the working of the University. Respondents No. 4 to 15 have also specifically submitted that they were regularly appointed as Reaserch Associates and had been working since long. Since the said cadre of Research Associates was declared to be a vanishing cadre, it had become necessary for the respondent -University to consider their absorption in some suitable: posts. Since the qualifications for the post of a Research Associate are the same as that of lecturer, they were absorbed as lecturers after their selection by a statutory Selection Committee. This selection is said to be legal and justified Respondent No 2 has in her reply submitted that she was, by a resolution of the Executive Council dated 22 -5 -1985, appointed as a Research Associate in the department of History after the due selection by the Selection Committee and held the said post in accordance with law. A copy of the appointment order is filed as Anncxure R 2/2 Thereafter, she was selected for appointment as lecturer as the cadre of Research Associate was treated to be a wasted/ vanishing cadre. This is said to be in accordance with law relating to the appointments and is fully justified The reply of respondent No. 3 is that she was working as an Evaluator in the Directorate of Correspondence Course in the subject of Sociology and has been regularised as a lecturer because the cadre of Evaluator has been treated as a vanishing cadre. The reply of respondent No. 1, University, for the respondent No. 2 is that she was holding the post of Research Associate and since the said cadre was declared to be a vanishing cadre, she was appointed against a regular vacant post of lecturer in accordance with the decision of the University and selection by the Statutory Selection Committee As regards the respondent No. 3, it is submitted by the respondent -University that she was appointed an as Evaluator in the Directorate of the Correspondence Course in the subject of Sociology which was taught upto under -graduate level. There were few students at the under -graduate level in the said subject and, therefore, the services of this respondent were used for teaching postgraduate classes in Education through correspondence course and evaluating the assignment of the M. Ed students Since, she has necessary requisite educational qualification, she was appointed lecturer in Education and adjusted against a vacant post, This according to the respondent - University, is legal and justified. As regards respondent No 16f it is submitted that though the Evening College is under -graduate college and the post of lecturer was advertised in the said College, this respondent was appointed as lecturer in Public Administration in the University because the Inspecting team of the University Grants Commission assessed the development of the University and recommended opening of a Public Administration Department. Because of the aforesaid recommendation, this respondent was given appointment in the University on the basis of recommendation of the Executive Council It is, therefore, submitted that the appointments are legal and valid and do not justify interference by this Court.