HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS.versusDR. P. D. KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. & ORS.

                    [2014] 4 S.C.R. 717


   HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS.                    A
                             v.
     DR. P. D. KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. & ORS.
            (Civil Appeal No. 4412 of 2014 etc.)
                      APRIL 04, 2014
                                                                B
         [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

    MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY ACT,
1983:
                                                                c
     ss. 6, 11 and 15 - Power of Chancellor to appoint
Committee to inquire into illegalities and irregularities in
selection and appointment of Senior Research Assistants and
Junior Research Assistants - HELD: Inquiry directed by
Chancellor into illegalities and irregularities of selection    0
process in appointment of Senior and Junior Research
Assistants was legally permissible -- Exercise of such power
is not subject to any limitation or impediment because the
power is vested in a high constitutional functionary who is
expected to exercise the same only when such exercise           E
becomes necessary to correct aberrations and streamline
administration so as to maintain the purity of the procedures
and process undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt
with by it.

      ss. 11 and 15 - Report of Justice Dhabe Committee that F
 entire selection process was vitiated by illegalities,
 irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, appointments
 made need to be set aside - Accepted by Chancellor and
 appointments cancelled - Compliance of principles of natural
justice - Held: Justice Dhabe Committee had issued notices G
 to the appointees who had in tum responded to the same -
 Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice
 were violated by the Committee especially when no prejudice
is demonstrably caused to petitioners on account of
                            717                                 H
    718     SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A procedure which the Committee followed in concluding the
  enquiry proceedings - Further, in compliance with orders
  passed by Chancellor, Vice Chancellor of University issued
  notices to appointees calling upon them to appear before him
  for a personal hearing in support of their selection and
B appointment as SRAs/JRAs -- The appointees filed their
  responses in required format - They were a/so given an
  opportunity of being heard by Vice Chancellor -- Thus, Vice
  Chancellor had acted fairly, and fully complied with principle
  of natural justice - No further hearing was required to be
c repeated by Chancellor, who had before him the
  recommendations of Executive Committee and Vice
  Chancellor and took a final view of the matter having regard
  to the totality of circumstances - Continuance in office of those
  selected by means that are not fair, transparent and
  reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong - Therefore,
0
  appointments were rightly set aside by Chancellor- Directions
  give for constituting of Selection Board in terms of
  /.:mendment Act 32 of 2013 and for selection afresh giving
  age relaxation to appellants, and on their selection to give
  them benefit of continuity of service - Service Jaw -
E Administrative Jaw - Principles of natural justice - Audi alteram
  partem.

       Complaints to the Governor and Chancellor of the
  University and writ petitions before the High Court were
F filed alleging illegalities and irregularities in the selection
  of 76 Senior Research Assistants and 55 Junior
  Research Assistants. The Chancellor in terms of s. 11 of
  the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities Act, 1983,
  appointed Justice Dhabe Committee to examine the
G papers relating to the selection and appointments of the
  candidates and to submit a report as to its fairness. The
  Committee submitted its report concluding that the entire
  selection process and selection of the candidates to the
  posts of SRA and JRA was vitiated by the illegalities,
H irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, the
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. 0. 719
           KRISHI VIOYAPEETH BY REG

  appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set             A
  aside. The Chancellor cancelled the appointments both
. of Senior Research Assistants and of Junior Research
  Assistants. Ultimately, individual letters were issued to
  them terminating their services. The writ petitions filed by
  the appointees were dismissed by the High Court.               B

     In the instant appeals, the following questions arose
for consideration of the Court:

      1)    Was the Chancellor competent to appoint a
            single Member Committee headed by Justice            C
            H.W. Dhabe to examine the· illegalities,
            irregularities, fairness and impropriety of the
            selection      process     and    consequent
            appointments to the cadre of SRAs and JRAs?
                                                                 D
      2)    Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted to
            Justice Dhabe Committee conducted in
            accordance with the principles of natural
            justice?

      3)    Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe          E
            Committee in any manner illegal or perverse to
            warrant interference with the same by a writ
            Court?

      4)    Was the procedure adopted by the University          F
            and the Vice Chancellor fair and reasonable
            and in consonance with the principles of
            natural justice?
      5)    Was the Chancellor of the respondent-
            University and the High Court justified in           G
            declining the prayer of the petitioners for
            continuance in service on account of the time
            lag between the date of their appointments and
            the date on which their services were
            terminated?                                          H
    720      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A         Dismissing the appeals, the Court

          HELD:

    Question No. 1:

B        1.1 Creation of teaching, research and education
    posts required by the University being one of the
    functions of the University and appointment of suitable
    persons against such posts being also one of such
    functions: the power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry
c   u/s. 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Agriculture University Act,
    1983, can extend to any process leading to such
    appointments. The term 'administration of the University'
    appearing in sub-s. (1) of s. 11 would, include every such
    activity as is relatable to the functions of the University,
0   u/s. 6. Selection of persons suitable for appointment and
    appointments of such persons would logically fall within
    the expression_"administration of the University" within
    the meaning of s. 11(1) of the Act. Section 15 (5) vests the
    Chancellor with the power to annul any proceeding of
E   any officer or authority if the same is not in conformity
    with the provisions of the Act, the statutes or the
    Regulations or which is prejudicial to the interest of the
    University. A conjoint reading of ss. 11 and 15, leaves no
    manner of doubt that the Chancellor exercises ample
    powers in regard to the affairs of the University and in
F   particular in regard to the affairs of the administration of
    the University. The power vested in the Chancellor u/s.
    11 to direct an inspection or an inquiry into matters
    referred to in the said provision is very broad and vests
    the Chancellor with the authority to direct an inspection
G   ~r an inquiry whenever warranted in the facts and
    circumstances in a given case. The exercise of such
    power is not subject to any limitation or impediment
    understandably because the power is vested in a high
    constitutional functionary who is expected to exercise the
H   same only when such exercise becomes necessary to
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. OR. P. D. 721
           KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG.

correct aberrations and streamline administration so as        A
to maintain the purity of the procedures and process
undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt with by
it. Therefore, the inquiry directed by the Chancellor into
the illegalities and irregularities of the selection process
culminating in the appointment of Senior and Junior            B
Research Assistants was legally permissible. [Para 15 -
16] [739-H; 740-A-D; 741-E-H; 742-A]

     1.2 Justice Dhabe Committee was constituted by the
Chancellor for holding a detailed inquiry into the
allegations. The petitioners were not only aware of the        C
fact about the pending writ proceedings but also about
the constitution of Justice Dhabe Committee, which had
issued notices to the appointees who had in turn
responded to the same. The constitution of Justice
Dhabe Committee was never questioned by the                    D
petitioners. While the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Committee could be assailed, the challenge to the setting
up of the Committee was clearly untenable not only
because there was no merit in that contention but also
because having taken a chance to obtain a favourable           E
verdict, the petitioners could not turn around to assail the
constitution of the Committee itself. [Para 17] [742-E-F, G-
H; 743-B-C]

Question No. 2:                                                F
     2. The petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged
Justice Dhabe Committee Report before the High Court
on the ground that principles of natural justice had not
been complied with by the Committee. The High Court
has rightly noted that Justice Dhabe Committee had             G
issued notices to each one of the petitioners asking for
their explanation which the petitioners had submitted.
The petitioners had candidly admitted in the writ petition
itself that upon receipt of notices from the Committee
they had appeared and filed their affidavits before the        H
    722    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.

A Committee. The Committee had, associated the
  petitioners with the proceedings by inviting them to
  appear and participate in the same, heard them and
  considered their version. Therefore, it cannot be said that
  principles of natural justice were violated by the
B Committee especially when no prejudice is demonstrably
  caused to the petitioners on account of the procedure
  which the Committee followed in concluding the enquiry
  proceedings. [Para 18] [743-C-E, F-H; 744-F-G]

    Question No. 3:
c
       3.1 Findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee
  were based on facts discovered in the course of the
  inquiry. No serious attempt was made before the High
  Court nor even before this Court to challenge the said
D findings of fact. Even otherwise, a fact finding inquiry
  instituted by the Chancellor was bound to involve
  appraisal of evidence, documentary and oral. The
  conclusions drawn on the basis of such appraisal were
  open to critical evaluation by the authorities before whom
E the conclusions and the Report was submitted for action
  but once such conclusions, are upon a careful re-
  appraisal found to be justified, a writ court will be very
  slow in interfering with the same. [Para 19] [744-H; 745-
    A-C]
F      3.2 In the instant case, upon receipt of the report from
  Justice Dhabe Committee, the matter was directed to be
  placed before the Executive Council of the University,
  which. without any reservation approved the findings
  recorded by Dhabe Committee, no matter with a
G recommendation to the Chancellor to take a lenient view
  in the matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioners
  had already served the University for nearly six years. The
  recommendation of the Executive Council did not,
  however, find anything amiss with the conclusions drawn
H by the Dhabe Committee as to the irregularities in the
HITENDRA SINGH S/0 BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 723
           KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG.

selection process culminating in illegal appointments of       A
the selected candidates. The Chancellor also took the
view that the entire selection stood vitiated by widespread
irregularities. There is no reason to interfere with the
findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee that the
sanctity of the entire selection process was vitiated by       B
irregularities and acts of nepotism. [Para 20) [745-C, D-F,
G-H; 746-A)

Question No. 4:

     4.1 In compliance with the orders passed by the           C
Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor of the University issued
notices to the appointees calling upon them to appear
before him for a personal hearing in support of their
selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs. The
appointees filed their responses in the required format        D
and were also given an opportunity of being heard by the
Vice Chancellor. The High Court has correctly concluded
that the petitioners had failed to establish that the Vice
Chancellor had either violated the principles of natural
justice or that any prejudice was caused by the                E
procedure adopted by him in offering them a hearing.
Thus, the Vice Chancellor acted fairly and he fully
complied with the principle of natural justice. [Para 21)
[7 46-B-D, E-F I G-H]

     4.2 The requirements of audi alteram partem are not       F
capable of a strait jacket application. Their application
depends so much upon the nature of the tribunal that is
deciding the matter, the nature of the inquiry that is being
made and the consequences flowing from the
determination. A notice to the petitioners who were likely     G
to be affected and a hearing afforded to them apart from
written responses filed in reply to the notices was a
substantial compliance with the principles of natural
justice. No further hearing was required to be repeated
by the Chancellor, who had before him the                      H
    724     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A recommendations of the Executive Committee and the
  Vice Chancellor and took a final view of the matter having
  regard to the totality of the circumstances. There is no
  error of law in the view taken by the High Court to warrant
  interference. [Para 21 & 22) [746-H; 747-A-C]
8 Question No. 5:

         5.1 The Chancellor declined to show any leniency to
    the petitioners, no matter they had served the University
    for over six years, primarily because the entire selection
c   process was in his opinion vitiated by widespread
    irregularities in the selection process. The findings
    recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee upon a detailed
    and thorough examination of the matter fully supported
    that view of the Chancellor. The reasons that prevailed
0   with· the Chancellor cannot be said to be illusory or
    irrelevant so as to call for interference from a writ Court.
    The Chancellor was dealing with a case where the
    Selection Committee had called a large number of
    candidates for interview without following the proper
    procedure as prescribed by the State Government
E   leading to the appointment of undeserving candidates by
    manipulation and favouritism. The Chairman and the
    Member Secretary of the Selection Committee had on
    their own increased the number of posts of SRAs and
    JRAs to be filled upon. All aspects were considered by
F   Justice Dhabe Committee in its report which concluded
    that the entire selection process was vitiated. That
    beneficiaries of such faulty selection process should hold
    on to the benefit only because of lapse of time would be
    travesty of justice especially when deserving candidates
G   were left out. [Para 23) [747-H; 748-A-C, F-G]
       5.2 Continuance in office of those selected by means
  that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will amount
  to perpetuating the wrong. Continuance of the petitioners
H in service would not, be justified having regard to the
 HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 725
            KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG.

background in which the selection and appointments            A
were made and eventually set aside by the University. All
that the long years of service rendered with the University
may secure for the appellants is a direction to the effect
that in any future selection against the vacancies caused
by their ouster and other vacancies that may be available     B
for the nextselection, the petitioners shall also be
considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed.
Such of the petitioners who appear in the next selection
and succeed, will also have the benefit of continuity of
service. [Para 23 - 24] [748-H; 749-E-G]
                                                              c
Constituting of Selection Board and recruitment afresh:

    6.1 In view of the amendment of 1983 Act in term of
Maharashtra Act No. XXXll of 2013, establishment of a
Selection Board and formulation of proper procedure to        D
be followed by the Board will go a long way in making
the process of selection and recruitment objective, fair
and reasonable apart from bringing transparency to the
norms and the process by which such recruitments were
made. [Para 25] [750-A-B, E]
                                                              E
     6.2 This Court directs that the respondent-University
shall take necessary steps for constituting the Selection
Board in terms of s. 58 of the Act as amended by
Maharashtra Act f.lo. XXXll of 2013 and advertise the
vacancies currently available, together with the posts that   F
are held by the appellants for recruitment in accordance
with the procedure that may be prescribed in accordance
with law. The appellants shall also be allowed to apply
and participate in the selection process against the
vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper age
limit prescribed for such recruitment. For a period of six    G
months or till the process of selection and appointment
based on the selection process is completed by the
respondent, whichever is earlier, the appellants shall be
allowed to continue in service on the same terms as are
currently applicable to them. In case any one of the          H
    726      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A appellants is selected by the new selection process, he
  shall be granted benefit of continuity of service. (Para 26]
  [750-G-H; 751-A-C]

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4412 of 2014.
B
        From the Judgment and order dated 16.08.2012 of the
    High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 238 of 2012.
                                  WITH
C Civil Appeal Nos. 4413, 4414 and 4415 of 2014.

         P.P. Rao, Shantanuu Khedkar, Satyajit A. Desai,
    somanath Padhan, Anagha S. Desai, Anuradha Mutatkar for
    the Appellants.
      ·sanjay Kharde, Abhay Sambhre, Preshit Surshe, Amol
D ·Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Akshat Kulsreshtha, Swarnendu
   Chatterjee, Surajit Bhaduri for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
E
       _ 2. These appeals arise out of a common Judgment and
    Order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of
    Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench whereby writ petitions
    No.238, 247, 251 and 389 of 2012 filed by the appellants,
F · herein, have been dismissed and the orders passed by the
    respondents terminating their services affirmed .
      . 3. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth invited
  applications for appointment against 24 vacancies in the cadre
  of-senior Research Assistants and 37 vacancies in the cadre
G of Junior Research Assistants. As many as 3214 applications
  were received from eligible candidates against 61 posts so
  advertised. Appointments based on the selection conducted by
  the Selection Committee concerned were all the same made
  for as many as 131 posts out of which 76 appointments were
H made against the posts of Senior Research Assistant while the
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 727
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

remaining 55 were made in the cadre of Junior Research               A
Assistants. It is common ground that the selection process was
based on a total weightage of 100 marks for each candidate
out of which 40 marks were reserved for educational
qualification of the candidate and his/her experience while the
remaining 60 marks were set apart for viva-voce examination.         B

      4. Several complaints appear to have been made against
the selection process and the resultant appointments made by
the University. Some of these complaints were in the form of
writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur C
while some others were addressed to His Excellency, the
Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor of
the University. Out of the writ petitions filed against the selection
and appointment process, Writ Petition No.4771 of 2006 inter
alia prayed for a direction to the Chancellor to institute an
inquiry under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Agriculture D
Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 in regard to the
illegalities and irregularities committed in the selection and
consequent appointments against the vacancies referred to
above. By an Order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High
Court in the said petition, the Chancellor was directed to take E
a decision in the matter on or before the 14th August, 2007.
Two other writ petitions were similarly filed before the High
Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appointment
process. In writ petition No.342 of 2006 filed by Shri H.S.
Bache, the High Court passed an interim order to the effect that F
the selection of the candidates shall remain stayed subject to
the further orders of the Court. Writ Petition No.905 of 2006 filed
by Archana Bipte and another also assailed the validity of the
selection and appointment process undertaken by the University
on several grounds.       ·                                           G

     5. It was in the above backdrop that the Chancellor
invoked his powers under Section 11 (1) of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 and appointed Mr. Justice
H.W.Dhabe, a former Judge of the High Court of Bombay to            H
    728     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A examine the papers relating to the selection and appointment
  of the candidates concerned against the posts referred to
  above and to submit a report to the Chancellor as to the
  fairness of the selection of the candidates appointed by the
  University. A reading of the order passed by the Chancellor
B would show that apart from several allegations made by Dr.
  B.G. Bhathakal, Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University and four
  others, the Chancellor had before him, a report dated 8th
  November, 2006 submitted by the Director General MCAER
  Pune from which the Chancellor noticed several irregularities
c allegedly committed in the process of selection such as
  violation of Statute 52, holding of common interviews for both
  Senior and Junior Research Assistants, appointing meritorious
  candidates from the reserved category seats instead of
  appointing them in the open merit category, selection of as
D many as 22 relatives of officers/employees of the University,
  absence of any short-listing of candidates for purposes of
  interview even when the applications were far in excess of the
  advertised vacancies. There were also allegations of the
  selection process not being transparent apart from allegations
  to the effect that the norms for academic evaluation and viva
E voce examination had been flouted.

       6. With the constitution of the Justice Dhabe's Committee
  writ petition No.4771 of 2006 titled Dr.Balwant and Anr. versus
  His Excellency the Chancellor of Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi
F Vidyapeet & Ors. and writ Petition No.905 of 2006 titled Ms.
  Archana and Anr. V. State and Ors. were both disposed of with
  the-observation that Justice Dhabe Committee was constituted
  to examine the complaints made by the writ petitioners and
  connected issues was expected to submit its report to the
G Chancellor making it unnecessary for the Court to undertake
  any such exercise in the said petitions.

         7. Proceedings before Justice Dhabe Committee started
    with the issue of notices to those appointed informing them
    about the establishment of the Committee to inquire into the
H
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 729
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

fairness of the selection process and calling upon them to           A
appear in person before the Committee and to file affidavits
and documents, if any, to justify their selection and appointment.
It is not in dispute that the appellants received the said notices
and acknowledged the same by filing their respective affidavits.
The appellants were in the meantime informed by the University       B
that they had completed their period of probation satisfactorily
but the declaration to that effect was to remain subject to the
outcome of writ petitions No.342 of 2006 and 4771 of 2006.

     8. Justice Dhabe Committee took nearly 3Y:z years to            C
complete the inquiry and to submit its report to the Chancellor
in which the entire process of selection and appointment came
under severe criticism questioning the fairness of the selection
process and the resultant appointments. The High Court has
summed up the substance of the findings and conclusions
arrived at by Justice Dhabe in the following words:                  0

      1)    As large numbers of candidates were called for
            interview, without following proper ratio as
            prescribed by the State government, it has led to
            se'qcfion of undeserving and less meritorious            E
            cc... =-··Jates by manipulation, favouritism and other
            malpractices etc.

      2)    Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to
            two separate cadres with different pay scales,           F
            different qualifications and duties and
            responsibilities, the Selection Committee held
            common interviews for the said posts and vitiated
            the selection of the candidates as their suitability
            could not have been properly judged in such              G
            interviews for the said posts.                ·

      3)    The criteria for assessment of the candidates for
            the posts of SRAIJRA were illegal.

      4)    The Selection Committee has awarded marks for            H
    730        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A                Ph.D. Thesis submitted, research papers/popular
                 articles published and significant contribution
                 made after the last date of application i.e.
                 15.09.2004 by resorting to illegal marking system.

          5)     The Selection Committee gave higher weightage
B
                 to the performance in interview as compared to
                 academic performance. .

          6)     The procedure followed by the Selection
                 Committee for awarding marks to the candidates
c                for academic performance and performance in
                 interview was illegal and invalid.

          7)      There was tinkering in mark seats of the
                 candidates. In some of the cases the mark sheets ·
D                were not prepared in the meeting of the S~ction
                 Committee and they were also not place before
                 any of its meeting for its consideration and
                 approval.

          8)     The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the
E                Selection Committee on their own without any
                 authority or power in them increased the number
                 of posts of SRA and JRA to be filled in.

          9)     Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and
F                76 posts of JRA was not made according to the
                 prescribed percentage for each of the backward
                 classes and open category as per the relevant
                 GRs.

          10)    The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA
G                were not prepared or considered and approved in
                 the meeting of the Selection Committee. There
                 were lacunae, deficiencies, illegalities and
                 irregularities in preparation of the selection list.

H         11)    Though in the advertisement it was specifically
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 731
   KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

          provided for wait lists to be prepared for the near    A
          future vacancies, no wait lists were prepared by the
          Selection Committee.

    12)   The Selection Committee did not discharge any
          of its duties and responsibilities in· the selection   8
          process.

    13)   The entire selection process and selection of
          candidates pursuant thereto for the posts of SRA
          and JRA is vitiated by bias of Dr. V.D. Patil,
          Chairman of the Selection Committee.             C

    14)   As per the findings of Justice Dhabe, favouritism
          has occurred in the process of selection to the
          posts of SRA and JRA

    15)   The qualification of Bachelor's degree in              D
          Agriculture Engineering was introduced as an
          additional qualification for the post of JRA as per
          the addendum dated 06.09.2004 to the
          advertisement dated 14. 08.2004 in which the posts
          of JRA were advertised with the qualification of       E
          Bachelor's degree in Agriculture.

    16)   Preparation of the minutes of various meetings of
          the Selection Committee were not recorded
          faithfully and confirmed by its other members. The     F
          proceedings/minutes of the meetings of the
          Selection Committee were probably prepared after
          the appointment orders were issued on
          16.09.2005 and 17.09.2005.
    17)   There were more than 2 months delay in handing         G
          over the Selection fists to the then Vice
          Chancellor. The reasons given by the then Vice
          Chancellor for the delay in not receiving the
          selection lists towards the end of June or July
                                                                 H
            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 4 S.C.R.
    732

A               2005 are not convincing.

          18)   The Reservation policy of the Government was not
                followed by the University. Reservations of the
                posts for backward classes (social/ vertical
                reservation) were not made according to their
B
                prescribed percentage as per the relevant GRs. of
                the State Government.

          19)   The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan
                Maharashtra Open University were not considered
c               in the University for appointment and promotion
                in the post of JRA.

          20)   There were illegalities, flaws and consequential
                reshuffling of the Selection Lists and other
D               infirmities in preparation of the existing selection
                lists of these posts of SRA and JRA. Thus, the
                appointments made in the posts of SRA and JRA
                are highly i"egular.

          21)    The routine procedures for making appointment
E               in the university was not followed in the
                appointments made to the posts of SRA and JRA.
                In the report it is concluded that the entire selection
                process and selection of the candidates to the
                posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated by the illegalities,
F               i"egularities and improprieties tmd therefore the
                appointments made pursuant thereto, need· to be
                set aside.

       9. On receipt of the report from Justice Dhabe Committee
G the Chancellor directed the Vice Chancellor of the University
  to place the matter before the Executive Council for its opinion.
  The matter was accordingly placed before the Executive
  Council of the University on 14th February 2011. The Council
  while accepting the findings recorded by the Dhabe Committee
H recommended that a lenient view be taken by the Chancellor
  HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 733
     KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

  and the appointments already made protected having regard           A
  to the fact that those appointed had already served the
  University for over six years during the interregnum. The
  petitioners also appear to have made a representation to the
  Chancellor in which they once again asserted that their
  appointments had been properly made on the basis of their           B
  merit and that the termination of their services after more than
  six years will be grossly unfair. The Chancellor, however, felt
  that Justice Dhabe Committee had reported illegalities and
  irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Selection
  Committee which findings having been accepted by the                c
  Executive Council left no room for any leniency in the case,
  considering the gravity and seriousness of the matter.· The
  Chancellor found that the entire process of selection of
  candidates and their appointments stood vitiated because of
  such irregularities. Directions were accordingly issued to the      0
  Vice Chancellor to initiate action to cancel the appointments
  of the candidates concerned after following the procedure
  prescribed by law and to fix the responsibility of those who had
  committed lapses in the matter of selection of the candidates
  and take disciplinary action against them including the             E
  Chairman of the Selection Committee and the then Registrar
  and Member Secretary of the said Committee. The Chancellor
  further directed the Vice Chancellor to consider the suggestions
  made by Justice Dhabe Committee in order to avoid
· recurrence of such illegalities and irregularities in fut-ure
  recruitments.                                                       F

      10. In obedience to the directions issued by the Chancellor,
 disciplinary action appears to have been initiated against those
 comprising the Selection Committee in which the officials are
 accused of having made illegal selection of 131 candidates           G
 including the petitioners thereby not only causing financial loss
 to the University but also bringing disrepute to it. We are in the
 present appeals not concerned with the fate of the said
 proceedings which appear to be lingering on even at present.
 As regards the petitioners, they were served notices calling         H
    734      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   upon them to appear before the Vice Chancellor for a personal
    hearing against their selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs
    in the University. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in reply
    to the said notices filed their respective responses before the
    Vice Chancellor and were heard on different dates mentioned
B   in the communications received by them. It is also not in dispute
    that the petitioners submitted their representations before the
    Vice Chancellor in writing in which they stated that their
    appointments were regular and legally sound apart from relying
    upon the fact that they had served the University for nearly six
c   years thereby entitling them to protection against ouster on
    equitable grounds. The Vice Chancellor then reported the result
    of the hearing provided by him to the petitioners by his letter
    dated 1st November 2011. Consideration of the report received
    from the Vice Chancellor, the opinion offered by the Executive
    Council of the University and the entire material including the
0
    report submitted by Justice Dhabe Committee led the
    Chancellor to pass an order on 16th December 2011 in which
    the Chancellor held that the entire process of selection and
    appointment having lost its sanctity on account of irregularities
    in the same could not be approved or rectified. The Chancellor
E   felt that a lenient view on humanitarian grounds alone would be
    against the principles of governance and fair selection process
    in the matter of recruitment. He accordingly turned down the
    recommendation of the Vice Chancellor that out of 83 SRAs
    and JRAs, selection of 65 candidates could be saved as valid
F   while remaining 18 could be ousted. He directed that Justice
    Dhabe Committee Report did not leave any room for the Vice
    Chancellor to strike a discordant note or sit in judgment over
    the conclusions drawn by the Committee. The Chancellor
    accordingly cancelled the appointments of 83 candidates of
G   SRAs and JRAs who had been selected and taken into the
    service of the University on the basis of a process which the
    Chancellor found was vitiated and void ab initio.

      11. In compliance with the directions issued by the
H Chancellor the Vice Chancellor issued individual orders in each
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 735
   KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

case terminating the services of the appointees concerned.         A
Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners filed Writ Petition
Nos. 238/12, 389/12, 247/12 and 251/12 before the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench which petitions have
now been dismissed by the said Court in terms of the common
order impugned in these appeals."                          •       B

     12. We have heard learned· counsel for the parties at
length. The following questions arise for our consideration:

      1)    Was the Chancellor competent to appoint a Single
            Member Committee headed by Justice H.W.                c
            Dhabe to examine the illegalities, irregularities,
            fairness and impropriety of the selection process
            and consequent appointments to the cadre of SRAs
            and JRAs?
                                                                   D
     2)     Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted to Justice
            Dhabe Committee conducted in accordance with
            the principles of natural justice?

     3)    Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe
           Committee in any manner illegal or perverse to          E
           warrant interference with the same by a Writ Court?

     4)    Was the procedure adopted by the University and
           the Vice Chancellor fair and reasonable and in
           consonance with the principles of natural justice?      F
     5)    Was the Chancellor of the respondent-University
           and the High Court justified in declining the prayer
           of the petitioners for continuance in service on
           account of the time lag between \he date of their
           appointments and the date on which their services G
           were terminated?

           We shall deal with the question ad seriatim.

                                                                   H
    736      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014) 4 S.C.R.


A   Reg. Question No. 1

       13. Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi
  Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 was enacted to consolidate and
  amend the law relating to the agricultural universities in the
  State of Maharashtra. The legislation provides for better
8
  governance, more efficient administration and financial control
  of the Universities and for better organisation of teaching,
  research and extension education therein apart from providing
  better facilities in agricultural and allied matters in particular for
  the development of agricultural sciences which is one of the
C prime objects underlying the Act. Chapter II of the Act comprises
  Sections 3 to 11. Section 4 of the Act states that each University
  shall be deemed to be established and incorporated for the
  purposes enumerated therein. The purposes mentioned in the
  said provision includes education in agriculture in allied
D sciences and in humanities besides furthering the advancement
  of learning and research in agriculture, undertaking and guiding
  extension education programmes; integrating and coordinating
  the teaching of subjects in the different faculties, coordinating
  agricultural education, research and extension education
E activities, teaching and examining students and conferring
  degrees and diplomas. Section 6 of the Act deals with the
  powers and functions of the Universities. It inter alia provides
  that each University shall have the powers and fLmctions
  enumerated under the said provision, in particular the,power
F to institute teaching, research and extension education posts
  required by the University and to appoint persons to such posts.
  Sub-section (x) to Section 6 is in this regard relevant which
  reads:

          "to institute teaching, research and extension education
G
          posts required by the University and to appoint persons
          to such posts.,,

        14. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to
    cause an inspection and inquiry on matters stipulated therein.
H
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 737
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [TS. THAKUR, J.]

We may gainfully extract the said provision in extenso as the       A
power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry into the validity of
the selection and appointments has been questioned before
us in these appeals. Section 11 reads as under:

    "SECTION 11: Chancellor to cause inspection and                 8
    inquiry on various matters:

      (1)    The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an
             inspection to be made, by such person or persons
             or body of persons, as he may direct, of any
             University,, its buildings, farms, laboratories, C
             libraries, museums, workshops and equipments of
            .any college, institution or hostel maintained,
             administered or recognised by the University and
             of the teaching and other work conducted by or on
             behalf of the University or under its auspices of D
             and of the conduct of examinations or other
             functions of the University, and to cause to inquiry
             to be made in like manner regarding any matter
             connected with the administration or finances of
             the University.                                      E
      (2)   The Chancellor shall, in every case, give due
            notice to the University of his intention to cause
            an inspection or inquirv to be made. and the
            University shall be entitled to appoint a
                                                                    F
            representative, who all have the right to be present
            and to be heard at the inspection or inquiry.

      (3)   After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to
            be made. the Chancellor may address the Vice-
            Chancellor on the result of such inspection or          G
            inquiry and the Vice-Chancellor shall:
            communicate to the Executive Council the views
            of the Chancellor and call upon the Executive
            Council to communicate to the Chancel/or
            through him its opinion thereon within such time        H
    738     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A               as mav have been specified bv the Chancellor. If
                the Executive Council communicates, its opinion
                within the specified time limit, after taking into
                consideration that opinion, or where the Executive
                Council fails to communicate its opinion in time,
B               after the specified time Hmit is over, the Chancellor
                may proceed and advise the. Executive Council
                upon the action to be taken by it, and fix a time
                limit for taking such action

          (4)   The Executive Council shall, w"/fhin the time limit
c               so fixed, report to the Chancellor through the Vice-
                Chancellor the action which hasiJeen taken or is
                proposed to be taken on the advice tendered by
                him.

D         (5)   The Chancellor may, where act7on,11_as not been
                taken by the Executive Council to his, satisfaction
                with in the time limit fixed, and after considering
                any explanation furnished or representation made
                by the Executive Council, issue such direction, as
E               the Chancellor may think fit, and the EE.xecutive
                Council and other authority concerned shall
                comply with such directions.

          (6)   Notwithstanding anything contained in the
                preceding sub-section if at any time the
F               Chancellor is of the opinion that in any matter the
                affairs of the University are not managed in
                furtherance of the objects of the University or in
                accordance with the provisions of this Act and the
                statutes and Regulation or that special measures
G               are desirable to maintain the· standards of
                University teaching, examinations, research,
                extension education, administration or finances,
                the Chancellor may indicate to the Executive
                Council through the Vice-Chancellor any matter
H               in regard to which he desires an explanation and
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 739
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

             call upon the Executive Council to offer such               A
             explanation within such time as may be specified
             by him. If the Executive Council fails to offer any
             explanation within the time specified or offers an
             explanation which, in the opinion of the Chancellor
             is not satisfactory, the Chancellor may issue such          s
             directions as appear to him to be necessary , and
             the Executive Council and other authority
             concerned shall comply with such directions.

       (7)   The Executive Council shall furnish such
             information relating to the administration and              C
             finances of the University as the Chancellor may
             from time to time require.

      (8)    The Executive Council shall furnish to the State
             Government such returns or other information with           D
             respect to the property or activities of the
             University as the State government may from time
             to time require".

                                              (emphasis supplied)
                                                                         E
     15. A careful reading of the above would leave no manner
of doubt that the Chancellor is vested with the power to cause
an inspection to be made by such person or persons as he may
direct of any University, its building, farms, laboratories, libraries
etc. or of hostels administered and recognised by the University         F
or of the teaching or other workshops conducted on behalf of
the University or any conduct of examinations or other functions
of the University. The inspection so directed is, however, distinct
from.the inquiry which the Chancellor may direct regarding any
matter connected with the administration or finance of the               G
University. The expression 'administration or finance' of the
University are in.our opinion, wide enough to include an inquiry
into any matter that falls under Section 6(x) (supra). If creation
of teaching, research and education posts required by the
University is one of the functions of the University and if              H
    740      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A appointment of suitable persons against such posts is also one
  of such functions, there is no reason why the power of the
  Chancellor to direct an inquiry under Section 11 (1) should not
  extend to any process leading to such appointments. The term
  'administration of the University' appearing in sub-Section 1 of
B Section 11 would, in our opinion, include every such activity as
  is relatable to the functions of the University, under Section 6.
  Selection of persons suitable for appointment and
  appointments of such persons would logically fall within the
  expression "administration of the University" within the meaning
c of Section 11 (1) of the Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation
  in holding that the inquiry directed by the Chancellor into the
  illegalities and irregularities of the selection process culminating
  in the appointment of Senior and Junior Research Assistants
  was legally permissible. The power vested in the Chancellor
  under Section 11 to direct an inspection or an inquiry into
0
  matters referred to in the said provision is very broad and vests
  the Chancellor with the authority to direct an inspection or an
  inquiry whenever warranted in the facts and circumstances in
  a given case. We may also refer to Section 15 of the Act
  whereunder the Governor of Maharashtra is ex-officio Head of
E each of the Universities who shall, when present, preside at any
  convocation of the University. Section 15 reads:

          "(1) The Governor of Maharashtra, shall be the
          Chancellor of each of the Universities. '
F
          (2) The Chancellor shall. by virtue of his office. be the
          head of the Universitv and shall. when present. preside
          at any convocation of the University.

         (3) The Chancellor may call for his information anv
G        papers relating to the administration of the affairs of the
         University and such requisition shall be complied with by
       . the Universitv.

          (4) Every proposal to confer any honorary degree shall
          be subject to confirmation by the Chancellor.
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 741
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [TS. THAKUR, J.]

     (5)The Chancellor may. by order in writing. annul anv            A
     proceeding of any officer or authority of the University,
     which is not in conformity with this Act. the Statutes or the
     Regulations. or which is prejudicial to the interest of the
     University:
                                                                      B
     Provided that, before making any such order, he shall call
     upon the officer or authority to show cause why such an
     order should not be made,. and if any cause is shown
     within the time specified by him in this behalf, he shall
     consider the same.
                                                                      c
     (6) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and
     perform such other duties as are laid down by this Act."

                                            (emphasis supplied)

      16. A plain reading of the above shows that apart from          D
being the ex officio Head of the University, the statute
specifically confers upon the Chancellor the power to call for
his information any paper relating to the administration of the
affairs of the University and upon such request the University
is bound to comply with the same. Sub-section 5 vests the             E
chancellor with the power to annul any proceeding of any officer
or authority if the same is not in conformity with the provisions
of the Act, the statutes or the Regulations or which is prejudicial
to the interest of the University. A conjoint reading of Sections
11 and 15, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that the         F
Chancellor exercises ample powers in regard to the affairs of
the University and in particular in regard to the affairs of the
administration of the University. The power to direct an inquiry
into any matter concerning the administration of the University
is only one of the facets of power vested in the Chancellor. The      G
exercise of any such power is not subject to any limitation or
impediment understandably because the power is vested in a
high ponstitutional functionary who is expected to exercise the
same only when such exercise becomes necessary to correct
aberrations and streamline administration so as to maintain the       H
    742      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2014] 4 S.C.R.


A purity of the procedures and process undertaken- by the
  University in all spheres dealt with by it. The power to direct an
  inquiry is meant to kickstart corrective and remedial measures
  and steps needed to improve the functioning of the University
  as much as to correct any illegal or improper activity in the
B smooth running of the administration of the University. As a
  father figure holding a high constitutional office, the Chancellor
  is to be the guiding spirit for the Universities to follow a path of
  rectitude in every matter whether it concerns the administration
  or the finances of the University or touches the teaching and
c other activities that are undertaken by it. The legislature, it is
  obvious, has considered the conferment of such powers to be
  essential to prevent indiscipline, root out corruption, prevent
  chaos or deadlock in the administration of the University or any
  office or establishment under it that may tend to .shake its
  credibility among those who deal with the institution.
0
         17. The Chancellor had, in the case at hand, directed an
    inquiry into the illegalities and irregularities in the selection and
    appointment process in the light of widespr~ad resentment
    against the same as is evident from the fact that three writ
E   petitions had been filed in the High Court challenging the
    selection and the appointment process. Two of the writ petitions
    had been disposed of as noticed earlier no sooner Justice
    Dhabe Committee was constituted by the Chancellor for holding
    a detailed inquiry into the allegation~. The petitioners were not
F   only aware of the fact about the pending writ proceedings but
    also about the constitution of Justice Dhabe Committee. As a
    matter of fact with the disposal of Writ Petitions No.4771 of
    2006 and 905 of 2006 the petitioner had known that Justice
    Dhabe Committee will eventually determine whether or not their
G   selection and appointment was proper. Justice Dhabe
    Committee had even issued notices to the petitioners who had
    in turn responded to the same. The constitution of Justice
    Dhabe Committee was, despite all this, never questioned by
    the petitioners. On the contrary the petitioners merrily
H   participated in the proceedings and took a chance to obtain a
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 743
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

favourable verdict from it. Having failed to do so, they turned       A
around to challenge not only the findings recorded by the
Committee but even the authority of the Chancellor to set up
such a Committee. While the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Committee could be assailed, the challenge to the setting up
of the Committee was clearly untenable not only because there         B
was no merit in that contention but also because having taken
a chance to obtain a favourable verdict the petitioners could
not turn around to assail the constitution of the Committee itself.
Question 1 is accordingly answered in the negative.

Reg. question No. 2                                                   c
      18. The petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged Justice
 Dhabe Committee Report before the High Court on the ground
that principles of natural justice had not been complied with by
the Committee. The High Court has noted and in our opinion            o
rightly so that Justice Dhabe Committee had issued notices to
each one of the petitioners asking for their explanation which
the petitioners had submitted. The High Court noted that the
inquiry proceedings before Justice Dhabe had continued for
nearly three years during which period the petitioners had made       E
no grievance either before the Committee or before any other
forum regarding non-compliance with the principles of natural
justice. There is nothing on record to suggest that any point
relevant to the controversy was not considered by Justice
Dhabe Committee or that there was any impediment in their             F
offering an effective defence before the Committee. The
petitioners had on the contrary candidly admitted in the writ
petition itself that upon receipt of notices from the Committee
they had appeared and filed their respective affidavits before
the Committee. Some of the petitioners had even furnished
some additional information which was summoned from them.             G
The Committee had, it is evident, associated the petitioners with
the proceedings by inviting them to appear and participate in
the same, heard the petitioners and considered their version.
There is neither an allegation nor any material to suggest that
                                                                      H
    744      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 ·. [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A there was any reluctance or refusal on the part of the Committee
  to entertain any material which the petitioner intended to place
  in their defence or to summon any record from any other quarter
  relevant to the questions being examined by the Committee.
  The argument that the petitioners did not know as to what the
8 complaint against them was has been rejected by the High
  Court and quite rightly so. Once the petitioners were informed
  about the setting up of the Committee and invited to participate
  in the same and once they had appeared before the Committee
  and filed their affidavits it is difficult to appreciate the argument
C that the petitioners did so without knowing as to why was the
  Committee set up and what was the inquiry all about. Assuming
  that any of the petitioners did not fully comprehend the nature
  of allegations being inquired into by the Committee or the
  p4rpose of the inquiry nothing prevented the petitioners from
  taking suitable steps at the appropriate stage assuming that
D they were so na"ive as to simply appear before the Committee
  without being aware of the purpose for which they were invited.
  They could indeed approach the Committee to secure the
  relevant information to fully acquaint themselves about the on-
  going process and the nature of the defences that was open
E to them. Having remained content with their participation in the
  inquiry proceedings for nearly three years and haying made no
  grievance at all against the procedure adopted by the
  Committee in dealing with the subject till the writ petitions
  challenging the termination orders were filed, we see no merit
F in the specious contention that principles of natural justice were
  violated by the Committee especially when no prejudice is
  demonstrably caused to the petitioners on account of the
  procedure which the Committee followed in concluding the
  enquiry proceedings. Question No.2 is also in that view
G answered in the negative.

    Reg. Question No. 3

        19. Findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee were
    based on facts discovered in the course of the inquiry. No
H
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 745
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [TS. THAKUR, J.]

serious attempt was made before the High Court nor even              A
before us to challenge the said findings of fact. Even otherwise
a finding inquiry instituted by the Chancellor was bound to
involve appraisal of evidence, documentary and oral. The
conclusions drawn on the basis of such appraisal were open
to critical evaluatron by the authorities before whom the            B
conclusions and the Report was submitted for action but once
such conclusions are upon a careful re-appraisal found to be
justified, a writ Court will be very slow in interfering with the
same.

      20. In the present case, upon receipt of the report from
                                                                     c
 Justice Dhabe Committee the matter was directed to be placed
 before the Executive Council of the Uhiversity. That direction
was meant to give the Executive Council an opportunity to
examine the findings of fact and the conclusions drawn from
the same critically and to determine whether the same were           D
justified. The Executive Council, it is common ground, had
without any reservation approved the findings recorded by
 Dhabe Committee, no matter with a recommendation to the
Chancellor to take a lenient view in the matter, having regard
to the fact that the petitioners had already served the University   E
for nearly six years. The recommendation of the Executive
Council did not, however, find anything amiss with the
conclusions drawn by the Dhabe Committee as to the
irregularities in the selection process culminating in illegal
appointments of the selected candidates. The 'fact finding'          F
aspect thus stood concluded with the approval of the Executive
Council of the University. The Vice Chancellor no doubt made
an attempt at segregating what according to him was the valid
part of the selection from that which was not, but the Chancellor
did not approve of that exercise. The Chancellor took the view       G
that the entire selection stood vitiated by widespread
irregularities, leaving hardly any room for a distinction between
the so called valid and invalid parts of the selection process.
Be that as it may the fact remains that we have not been able
to find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the    H
    746     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2014] 4 S.C.R.


A Justice Dhabe Committee. The sanctity of the entire selection
  process having been vitiated by irregularities and acts of
  nepotism, question No. 3 shall have to be answered in the
  negative, which we accordingly do.

    Reg. Question No. 4
8
          21. It is also not in dispute that in compliance with the
    orders passed by the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor of the
    University had issued notices to the petitioners calling upon
    them to appear before him for a personal hearing in support
C of their selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs. It is also not
    in dispute that upon receipt of the said notices the petitioners
    had filed their responses in the required format and were also
    given an opportunity of being heard by the Vice Chancellor. In
    the course of the hearing the petitioners obviously relied upon
D the written responses and sought a direction against ouster
    from service. There is, therefore, no merit in the submission that
    upon submission of the recommendations by Justice Dhabe
    Committee the petitioners did not have any opportunity to
    present their version before the Vice Chancellor nor is it
E possible to dub the hearing provided by the Vice Chancellor
    as a farce. The High Court has, in our opinion, rightly rejected
    a similar contention urged before it and correctly concluded that
    the petitioners had failed to establish that the Vice Chancellor
    had either violated the principles of natural justice or that any
F prejudice was caused by the procedure adopted by him in
    offering them a hearing. As a matter of fact the Vice- Chancellor
    had in his anxiety to help the petitioners tried to sit in judgment
    over the findings and conclusions of the inquiry Committee and
    taken a stance that was overtly sympathetic towards the
G petitioners. The uncharitable expression used by the petitioners
    as to the nature of the process undertaken by the Vice
    Chancellor is not, therefore, justified. The Vice Chancellor had
  . in our view acted fairly and fully complied with the principle of
    natural justice. There is no gainsaid that the requirements of
H audi alteram partem are not capable of a strait jacket
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 747
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

application. Their application depends so much upon the nature          A
of the Tribunal that is deciding the matter, the nature of the
inquiry that is being made and the consequences flowing from
the determination. A notice to the petitioners who were likely
to be affected and a hearing afforded to them apart from written
responses filed in reply to the notices was in our opinion a            B
substantial compliance with the principles of natural justice. No
further hearing was required to be repeated by the Chancellor
who had before whom the recommendations of the Executive
Committee and the Vice Chancellor who took a final view of
the matter having regard to the totality of the circumstances.          C
The High Court has, in this regard, observed:

     ''Thus, the Chancellor was not required to give any personal
      hearing to the petitioners while disagreeing with them. If
     we hold that prior to passing of the final order the
     Chancellor was required to hear the petitioners once D
     again, that would mean that although the facts are
     undisputed and although no prejudice is demonstrated, we
     agree with the submissions of the petitioners. This would
     mean second round or second opportunity being made
     available to the petitioners to show cause against the E
     findings and conclusions in the Inquiry Committee's report.
     That would mean reopening of the matter in its entirety
     which was not permissible and feasible in the peculiar facts .
     of the case. This could be equated with an opportunity to
     show cause against the proposed punishment as is F
     available in service jurisprudence. Those principles cannot
     be imported into the exercise that has been undertaken
     in the facts and circumstances of this case." ·

    22. We see no error of law in the view taken by the High
Court to warrant our interference. Question No. 4 is accordingly        G
answered in the negative.

Reg. Question No. 5

    23. The Chancellor declined to show any leniency to the         H




                                                                    \
    748      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A petitioners no matter they had served the University for over six
  years primarily because the entire selection process was in his
  opinion vitiated by widespread irregularities in the selection
  process. The findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee
  upon a detailed and thorough exarriination of the matter fully
8 supported that view of the Chancellor. The reasons that
  prevailed with the Chancellor cannot be said to be illusory or
  irrelevant so as to call for interference from a writ Court. The
  Chancellor was dealing with a case where the Selection
  Committee had called a large number of candidates for
C interview without following the proper procedure as prescribed
  by the State Government leading to the appointment of
  undeserving candidates by manipulation and favouritism. It was
  a case where the posts of SRAs/JRAs although carrying
  different pay scales were clubbed for holding a common
  interview. Even the criterion for assessment of the merit of the
D candidates was found to be faulty. Marks were awarded for
  qualifications although the thesis for such qualifications was
  submitted after the date prescribed for such advertisement.
  Marking system itself was found to be erroneous. Higher
  weightage was given to the performance in the interview as
E compared to academic merit. There was tinkering in the mark
  sheets of the candidates in certain cases and mark sheets
  were not made available in the meetings of the Selection
  Committee. The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the
  Selection Committee had on their own increased the number
F of posts of SRAs and JRAs to be filled upon. All these among
  other aspects were considered by Justice Dhabe Committee
  in its report which concluded that the entire selection process
  was vitiated. That beneficiaries of such faulty selection process
  should hold on to the benefit only because of lapse of time
G would be travesfy of justice especially when deserving
  candidates were left out with a brooding sense of injustice and
  cynicism against the efficacy of the system that was meant to
  act fairly and objectively. Continuance in office of those selected
  by means that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will
H amount to perpetuating the wrong. The length of service put in
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 749
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]

by the candidates who were selected on the basis of such a            A
faulty selection process may be one of the considerations that
enters the mind of the Court but there are other weighty
considerations that cannot be given a go bye or conveniently
forgotten lest those who do not adopt such malpractices or
those who expect the system to protect their interest and their       B
rights are eternally disappointed and left to believe that a wrong
once done will never be corrected just because the legal
process by which it is to be corrected is a long and winding
process that often takes years to reach fruition.

      24. Having said that we must say that the main contention       C
which the petitioners have urged in support of thei( continuance
in service is that they have become overage for any government
employment at this stage. If ousted from service the petitioners
will have no place to go nor even an opportunity to compete
for the vacancies against which they were appointed. That is          D
an aspect which can be and' ought to be considered especially
when there is no allegation leave alone evidence about any
bribery having taken place in the issue of appointment orders
by the officials concerned. Even so, continuance of the
petitioners in service would not, in our opinion, be justified        E
having regard to the background in which the selection and
appointments were made and eventually set aside by the
University. All that the long years of service rendered with the
University may secure for the petitioners a direction to the effect
that in any future selection against the vacancies caused by          F
their ouster and other vacancies that may be available for the
next selection the petitioners shall also be considered in
relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed for them. Such of
the petitioners who could try their luck in the next selection and
who succeed in the same will also have the benefit of continuity      G
of service.

     25. That brings us to the method of selection that may be
followed falling up the vacancies that will be caused by the ouster
of the petitioners. An affidavit has in that regard been filed by
                                                                      H
    750     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A the Shri Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar of the
  respondent-University stating that in terms of Maharashtra Act
  No. XXXll of 2013 the Maharashtra State legislature has
  amended Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi
  Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983. Section 58 of the principal Act as
B substituted by Act XXXll aforementioned provides that no
  person shall be appointed by the University as a member of
  the academic staff, except on the recommendation of a
  Selection Board constituted for the purpose in accordance with
  the provisions of the Statutes made in that behalf. The posts
c of SRAs and JRAs are classified as academic as per Statute
  71 of the MAU statutes 1990. The process of amendment to
  the statute 75 and 76 is now underway. The affidavit further
  states that the University will not be in a position to undertake
  the selection process of posts advertised on 23rd March 2012
0 and that selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per
  the new selection procedure. The affidavit is, however, silent
  as to the procedure that shall be followed by the Selection
  Board constituted for the purpose. Be that as it may the
  establishment of a Selection Board and formulation of proper
  procedure to be followed by the Board will go a long way in
E making the process of selection and recruitment objective, fair
  and reasonable apart from bringing transparency to the norms
  and the process by which such recruitments were made. We ·
  only hope that the process of amendment of relevant statute is
  expedited by the University and concluded as far as possible
F within six months from today and process of filling up of posts
  of SRAs and JRAs currently held by the petitioners and those
  that were advertised in terms of advertisement dated 23rd
  March 2012 undertaken in accordance with such procedure.

G      26. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed
  but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. We
  however direct that the University-respondent shall take
  necessary steps for constituting the Selection Board in terms
  of Section 58 of the Act as amended by Maharashtra Act No.
H XXXll of 2013 and advertise the vacancies currently available,
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 751
    KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [TS. THAKUR, J.]

together with the posts that are presently held by the appellants   A
for recruitment in accordance with the procedure that may be
prescribed in accordance with law. The entire process shall be
completed by the University within six months. The appellants
shall also be allowed to apply and participate in the selection
process against the vacancies so advertised in relaxation of        B
the upper age limit prescribed for such recruitment. For a period
of six months or till the process of selection and appointment
based on the selection process is completed by the
respondent, whichever is earlier, the appellants shall be allowed
to continue in service on the same terms as are currently           c
applicable to them. In case any one of the appellants is selected
by the new selection process, he shall be granted benefit of
continuity of service. But such of the appellants who do not
compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts that
may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on                0
completion of the period of six months hereby granted. No
costs.

R.P.                                       Appeals dismissed.