NAZIR AHMED SHEIKH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The University of Kashmir floated an advertisement notice contained in Annexure-PI of the petition. This advertisement notice does not bear any number or date. However, applications for different posts were invited upto 31.8.1991 under the said Notification. Besides others, Department of Urdu figured at S.No. 36. Under the Notification three posts of Lecturers and one post of Editor-cum-Lecturer were advertised. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer. He appeared in the interview, which was held at New Delhi on 22.1.1992. As many as 39 candidates had applied. Out of this lot, nine did not appear. A Selection Committee, duly constituted, in terms of Sec. 36 of the University Act (hereinafter called the Act), made some recommendations to the Syndicate. In the select list formulated by the Selection Committee, the petitioner also figured. When this list was placed before the Syndicate on 27.5.1992, the Syndicate resolved not to approve the recommendations made by the Selection Committee in respect of four posts in Urdu Department. The Syndicate also did not approve the recommendation of Miss Ruhi Maqbool as Lecturer in the Education Department. However, in the present case we are not concerned with Miss Ruhi Maqbool. She filed a separate writ petition before the Court. The grounds taken by the University were on different footing. The University failed to substantiate those grounds, as such she won the bout. I repeat that the two cases are different and here in the present case questions of law only arise. The petitioner was aggrieved of this decision of the Syndicate. Therefore, same was challenged by virtue of this petition.

(2.) The grounds taken before me by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the basis on which the Syndicate declined to approve the recommendations of the Selection Committee were not in existence. Mr. Shabir Ahmed, appearing for the petitioner, has contested both the grounds taken by the Syndicate on facts.

(3.) The counter filed by the respondent-University lays stress on the powers of the Syndicate and enforcibility of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee. Mr. R. Bazaz, appearing for the University, has been vehement enough in arguing that the power of appointment of the Lecturers lies with the Syndicate and not with the Selection Committee. The report of the Selection Committee is of a recommendatory nature. Such report has no binding force. It is for the employer to act or not to act upon such a report. According to him, the Syndicate is the Chief Executive of the University, therefore, it is the Syndicate alone which has the absolute power of appointment. The powers of the Selection Committee can never overlap with those enjoyed by the Syndicate.