RAJENDRA KUMAR NAGDA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Dean in the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. He applied for the post of Vice Chancellor in the said University in pursuance to the advertisement dated 06.02.2017. As per the Condition No. 2 of the said advertisement, one of the eligibility conditions is that a candidate should possess the requisite veterinary qualification as prescribed in the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said condition has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers :-

(2.) While praying for the relief claimed in prayer (a), it was contended that the constitution of the Search Committee itself is in conflict as the English version of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Act, 2010 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2010') provides that one member (out of four) shall be nominated by the Veterinary Council of India, whereas, the Hindi version of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2010 provides that, Thus, as per English Version, one of the members has to be nominated by the Veterinary Council of India and as per the Hindi Version, one of the members has to be nominated by the Academic Council. Therefore, both English and Hindi versions are different and till both versions are corrected in consonance with each other, the Search Committee for selection to the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be permitted.

(3.) With respect to the Prayer (c), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nomination of the Convener of the Search Committee is per se, illegal and de-hors the provisions contained in the Act of 2010 because the controversy to Section 24 of the Act of 2010 provides that person nominated shall not be a member of any of the authorities of the Universities but the person so indicated in the advertisement nominated as Convener of the Search Committee is none else than a retired Professor and Faculty Member and was also the member of the Board. He is presently a pensioner of the respondent - University, therefore, he cannot be said to be a person not having any personal interest in the University. His nomination is contrary to Section 24 of the Act of 2010.