Holding

Linguistics is a separate subject of study, and Explanation II does not apply; therefore, the selection committee was improperly constituted and the High Court's order stands.

Summary

A selection committee was formed to appoint a Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi at the University of Lucknow. The committee, comprising three experts in Hindi literature rather than linguistics, recommended Dr. Triloki Nath Singh for the post, placing Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra second. Dr. Misra challenged the committee’s constitution, arguing that the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 required experts from a panel specific to the subject of Linguistics, which is a separate course of study. The High Court agreed, quashed the recommendation, and the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court held that Linguistics is a distinct subject under Explanation I to Section 31(5) and that Explanation II does not apply because the post was not common to multiple subjects; consequently, the committee was improperly constituted. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether Linguistics is a separate subject of study from Hindi Language and Literature for purposes of Section 31(5) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.
Whether Explanation II to sub-section (5) of Section 31 permits experts in Hindi to sit on the panel for selecting a Reader in Linguistics.
Whether the selection committee constituted for the appointment was legally valid.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973s. 31(5), s. 66(9)

Subjects

Selection CommitteePanel of ExpertsLinguisticsHindi Language and LiteratureU.P. State Universities ActSeparate subject of studyExplanation IExplanation IIUniversity appointmentsAdministrative law

Judgment

DR. TRILOKI NATH SINGH
v. A
DR. BHAGWAN DIN MISRA AND ORS.

AUGUST 10, 1990

[A.M. AHMADI AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] B

U.P. State Universities Act, 1973: Sections 31(5), 66(9)-Panel
of experts-Constitution of-Subjects of Hindi language and literature
- ~-~ · and linguistics-Whether seperate subject of study.

A Selection Committee consisting of five Members was constituted
to recommend names for appointment to the post of Reader in 'Linguis- c
tics' in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow. The
Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates recommended
-~c the name of the appellant while respondent No. 1 was placed in the
second position.
D
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challeng-
ing the recommendations of the Selection Committee on the ground that
the Selec'ion Committee was not legally constituted becanse three
experts on the Committee were experts in Hindi Literature and not
Linguistic experts. The High Court allowed the petition and inter alia
held that under Statute 171 of the University, the Chancellor was E
required to nominate experts out of the panel of experts in the subject of
'Linguistics', which was a separte subject of study in the University; that
the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn from the subejct of
Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity; and that Explanation II to
sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, !973was
wholly inapplicable to the instant case. F

Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that
in view of the fact that a Reader in 'Linguistics' was to be appointed in
the Department of Hindi as such experts in Hindi Language and Litera-
ture were also qualified to act as experts for the selection of Reader in
"Linguistics'. G

Respondent No. 1, while supporting the judgment of the High
Court, submitted that Linguistics was a separate subject of study for
.i M.A. Part-I and Part-II and merely because the post of Reader in
Linguistics was in the Department of Hindi, it would not make any
difference and the experts of Hindi Language and Literature could not be H

727
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R
•
appointed as experts in the Selection Committee for the selection of .i..._
A
Reader in Linguistics.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: (I) The prospectus of the University makes it abundan-
B tty clear that separate courses of study are prescribed foe M.A. Part
·1 or Part II in respect of Hindi on the one hand and Linguistics on the
other. [734B]

. (2) The subject of Hindi Language and Literature and the subject
of Linguistics are entirely separate subjects of study. This is clearly
borne out from Explanation I to sub-section (5)(a) of section 31 of the
c Universities Act. [733H; 734A]

(3) Explanation I lays down in a clear manner that for the
purpose of this sub-section, a branch of subject in which a separate
course of study is prescribed for a post-graduate degree, or for Part I or
D Part II thereof, shall be deemed to be a separate subject of study. [734AJ

(4) It is an admitted position that separate Panels of Experts were
drawn for the subjects of Hindi and Linguistics. [732E]

(5) In the instant case, the advertisement no where provided that · '<:
E one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected
as common to more than one subject of study. Merely because the post
of Reader in Linguistics was required in the Department, it cannot be
held that such Reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguis-
tics as well as the subject of Hindi Language and Literature. [734G-HJ

F (6) Explanation II to sub-section (5) of section 31 of the Uni-
versities Act can only apply in a case where one common teacher
is to be selected for more than one subject of study and in that
contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such
subjects of study. l735A-B]

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
156(N) of 1976.

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1974 of the Allahabad
High Court in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1974.

H Ms. Rachna Gupta and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant.
T.N. SINGH v. B.D. MISRA [KASLIWAL, J.J 729

R. Hana for the Respondents.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIW AL, J. This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is directed
against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
(Lucknow Bench) dated 3.12.1974. The High Court ·by a common B
order disposed of number of Writ Petitions but we are concerned with
Writ Petition No. 418/74 filed by Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra who is
respondent No. 1 before us.

Brief facts of the case are that in the month of August, 1973 an
advertisement appeared in the daily Newspaper "National Herald"
inviting applications for 'the post of Reader in 'Linguistics' in the c
Department of Hindi of the Uni.versity of Lucknow. Interview of the
candidates was held on 8.4.74 at 3.00 p.m. by a Selection Committee
consisting of five members viz. the Vice Chancellor of the University,
Dr. K.N. Shukla, Head of the Department of Hindi and Modem
Indian Languages Lucknow University, Dr. Bhagirath Misra, Head of D
the Department of Hindi Saugar University, Saugar, Dr. Harbanslal
Sharma, Head of the Department of Hindi, Aligarh Muslim Uni-
versity, Aligarh and Shri Shyam Sunder, Head of the Department of
Hindi Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. It may be noted that the three
experts· from outside as mentioned above were experts in Hindi Litera-
ture and not Linguistic experts. The Selection Committee after E
interviewing the various candidates recommended the name of the
appellant, Dr. Triloki Nath Singh for being appointed to the post of
Reader Linguistics in Hindi Department and the respondent No. 1,
Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra was placed in the second position.

\ Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in F
~·
the High Court inter-alia stating that the Selection ·corrimittee was not
a legally constituted Committee and its recommendation should not be
acted upon. The writ petition was contested on behalf of 'the Uni-
versity as well as by the appellant. The High Court held that the
prospectus of the University showed that 'Linguistics' was a separate
subject of study. There were two courses in M.A. Part-I and Part-II, G
one in Hindi Language and Literature, and, ·the ·o"ther in Linguistics.
The High Court observed that even candidates, having passed the
J B.A. examination in Sanskrit or English, or M.A. Examiiiation in
Sanskrit or English were also eligible for admission in M.A. in Lin-
guistics in the Department of Hindi. Linguistics was thus a separate
subject of study ·and even graduates, who iniglit not have passed the
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

B.A. Examination with Hindi, were entitled to be admitted and
A
awarded the degree of M.A. in Linguistics. The Chacellor under ~
Statute 171 of the University was required to nominate experts out of
the panel of experts in the subject of 'Linguistics'. The High Court
further held that having regard to the fact that 'Linguistics' was a
separate subject of study in the University of Lucknow and the
B Chancellor had drawn a panel of experts in 'Linguistics', the nomina-
tion of experts out of the panel drawn for the subject of Hindi suffered
from a serious legal infirmity, substantially affecting the constitution · ·~
of the Selection Committee, which could not have been cured under
Section 66(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973
(hereinafter as the Act of 1973) and as such the recommendation of the
Selection Coinmittee was liable to be quashed.
c
The High Court as a result of the above findings allowed writ
petition No. 418/74 and quashed the recommendation of the Selection
Committee dated 8th April, 1974 for appointment to the post of
Reader in 'Linguistics' in the Department of Hindi. Dr. Triloki Nath
D Singh has thus filed the present appeal challenging the order of the
High Court.

We have heard counsel for both the parties. It may be mentioned
that the Lucknow University neither filed any appeal against the order
of the High Court nor any counsel appeared on its behalf before us. 'x
E Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Explanation
II to sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of 1973 the experts drawn
out of the panel of experts in Hindi could make selection of Reader in
'Linguistics' in the Department of Hindi.

It was further contended that in view of the fact that a Reader in
F 'Linguistics' was to be appointed in the Department of Hindi as such
experts in Hindi Language and Literature were also qualified to act as
experts for the selection of Reader in 'Linguistics'. Learned counsel
tried to seek support from the papers taught for M.A. in Linguistics as
well as for M.A. in Hindi in order to convince that some papers were

G
common to both the subjects, and as such there was nothing wrong or
illegal in case the experts of Hindi Language and Literature were
appointed for the selection of Reader in Linguistics.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
-
supported the Judgment of the High Court. It was submitted by him
that Linguistics was a separate subject of study for M.A. Part-I and
H Part-II and merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was in the
T.N. SINGH v. B.D. MISRA [KASLIWAL, J.] 731

Department of Hindi, it would not make any difference and the ex-
A
perts of Hindi Language and Literature cannot be appointed as experts
in the Selection .Committee for the selection of Reader in Linguistics.

We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for both the parties and have perused the record. There is no con-
troversy between the parties that the prospectus of Lucknow Uni- B
versity Department of Hindi and Modern Indian Languages prescribed
the courses of study for M.A. Part-I and Part-II in the subejct of Hindi
Language and Literature, and Linguistics separately.

The prospectus of Lucknow University, Department of Hindi
and Modern Indian Languages prescribed the following courses of
study for M.A. Part-I and Part-II for Hindi Language and Literature c
and the other for Linguistics.

M.A. Parts I and II

There shall two courses in M.A. Parts I and II one in Hindi D
Languages and Literature and the other in Linguistics. Students may
choose either of these two courses.

M.A. part f (Language and Literature)
Paper I Prachin Hindi Kavya
E
Paper II Madhyayugeen Kavya
Paper III Basic and Modern Indian Language
Paper IV History Hindi Literature and Criticism
PaperV Adhunik Hindi Gadya
F
M.A. and Part II (Language and Literature)
There shall be four papers and a viva voce test.
Paper I Linguistics and Historical Grammer of Hindi
Paper II Vishesh Kavi
G
Paper III Adhunik Kavya
j_ Paper IV Essay or Thesis or Folk Literature.

M.A. Part! (Linguistics)
Paper I Introduction to the !'rinciple of General Linguistics H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

Paper II Phonetics and Phonemics ....._
A
Paper III Descriptive Grammer of Hindi
Paper IV Applied Linguistics.

M.A. Part II (Linguistics)
a There will be four papers and a viva voce test.
Paper I Morphology and syntex
Paper II Comparative and Historical Linquisitics with special
reference to Inda-Aryan and Hindi Language.
Paper III Dialcctology with special reference Hindi Area.
c
Paper IV Essay or Thesis.

The above courses of study show beyond any manner of doubt
that Hindi Language and Literature and, Linguistics are two different
and separate subjects. It is also important to note that even graduates
D who have not passed the B.A. examination with Hindi could be admit-
ted and awarded the degree of M.A. in Linguistics. Merely because
the Linguistics is also a subject of study in one paper of Hindi, it
cannot be said that Linguistics and Hindi Language and Literature fall
under the same subject of study in the University. It is an admitted
position that separate Panel of Experts was drawn for the subjects of
E Hindi and Linguistics.

As the Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously placed
reliance on Explanation II to sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the Act of
1973 it is necessary to reproduce the same. Sub-Section (5) of Section
31 reads as under:
F
"31.(5)(a) A panel of six or more experts in each subject
of study shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after consult-
ing the corresponding Faculty in Indian Universities or
such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside
Uttar Pradesh as the Chancellor may consider necessary.
G Every expert to be nominated by the Chancellor under
sub-section (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on
such panel.

(b) The Board of each Faculty shall maintain a stand-
ing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of
H study, and every expert to be nominated by the Vice-
T.N. SINGH v. B.D. MISRA {KASLIWAL, J.] 733

Chancellor under sub-section (4) shall be a person whose
A
name is borne on the panel.

(c) A panel referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be
revised after every three years."

Explanation I-For the purposes of this sub-section, a . B
branch of subjet.:t in which a separate course of study is
prescribed for a post-graduate degree or for Part I or Part
II thereof shall be deemed to be a separate subject of
study.

Explanation II-Where the post of teacher to be selected is
common to more than one subject of study, the expert may c
belong to either of such subjects of study.

The High Court while considering a similar argument made
before it held that Explanation II could be availed of by the Chancellor
when he has drawn a fresh panel of experts in each subject of study D
under sub-section (5)(a). The High Court further held that Explana-
tion II cannot be divorced from the substantive provision contained in
sub-section (5)(a). It cannot stand independently of and separate from
the sub-section. The Explanation must be read so as to harmonise and
clear up any ambiguity in the main sub-section. The High Court thus
concluded that Explanation II was wholly inapplicable to the instant E
case and the question had got to be determined whether the experts
who constituted the Selection Committee were the experts drawn out
of the panel, under Clauses 168 and 169 of the Statutes. The High
Court then observed that according to the prospectus of the University
Linguistics was a separate subject of study in the University of Luck-
now and the Chancellor had a panel of experts on Linguistics drawn F
under Statutes 168 and 169, the nomination of experts out of the panel
drawn for the subject of Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity
substantially affecting the constitution of the Selection Committee
which could not have been cured by Section 66( a) of the Act.

We are examining the matter in a slightly different manner. Even G
if the panel already constituted by the Chancellor prior to the coming
into force of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, is treated
J. as a panel constituted under sub-section (5)(a) of Section 31 of the Act
of 1973 Explanation II does not render any help to the appellant. We
are in complete agreement with the High Court that subject of Hindi
Language and Literature and the subject of Linguistics are entirely H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 3 S.C.R.

separate subjects of study. This is clearly borne out tram Explanation I
A
to sub-section (5)(a) of Section 31 of the Act of 1973. Explanation I
lays down in a clear manner that for the purpose of this sub-section, a
branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a
post-graduate degree or for Part I or Part II thereof shall be deemed to
be a separate subject of study. The prosepectus of the University
B makes it abur.dantly clear that separate courses of study are prescribed
for M.A. Part I or Part II in respect of Hindi on the one hand and
Linguistics on the other. Explanation II lays down that where the post
of teacher to be selected is common to more than one subject of study,
in that case the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study.
The advertisement issued in the present case was placed before us and
which clearly made a mention at Serial No. 24 "One Reader in Lin-
c guistics in the Department of Hindi". At Serial No. 23 there was a
separate mention "There Readers in Hindi". The qualifications essen-
tial for the above posts as mentioned in the advertisement reads as
under:

D "QUALIFICATIONS:

ESSENTIAL: First or high Second Class Master's Degree
and Doctorate in the subject concerned with a good
academic record and experience of teaching honours/post-
graduate classes for not less than five years and published
E research work of high standard in the subject concerned.
The essential degree qualification for the post of Readers
in Faculty of Law will be LL.M. degree."

The above provision laying down essential qualifications also
goes to show that first or high second class degree and doctorate in the
F subject concerned was an essential qualification. As already men-
tioned above posts were mentioned separately for three Readers in
Hindi and one Reader in Linquistics in the Department of Hindi.
Explanation II could only apply in a case where the post of teacher to
be selected was common to more than one subject of study. Advertise-
ment no where provided that one Reader in Linguistics in the Depart-
G ment of Hindi was to be selected as common to more than one subject
of siudy. Merely because the post of Reader in Linguistics was
required in the Department of Hindi, it cannot be held that such
Reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguistics as well as
the subject of Hindi Language and Literature. It may also be noted
that from a perusal of the above advertisement alongwith the pros-
H pectus of the University clearly goes to show that for the post of
T.N. SINGH v. B.D. MISRA [KASLIWAL, J.] 735

Reader in Linguistics it was necessary to have an essential qualification A
of first or high second class Master's degree and Doctorate in the
subject of Linguistics. Explanation II can apply in a case where one
common teacher is to be selected for more than one subject of study
and in that contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either
of such subjects of study. In the case in hand before us the advertise-
B
ment did not mention that the post of one Reader in Linguistics in the
Department of Hindi was common with any other subject of study.
Thus the appointment of all the experts in the present case of subject .
of Hindi for the selection of one Reader in Linguistics in the Depart-
ment of Hindi was totally wrong and illegal.

In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any ground C
in the appeal to interfere with the Order of the High Court. In the result
this appeal fails and is rejected with no order as to costs.
-·------- ,

R.S.S. Appeal failed.

/

J