SRI RAJ PAL VERMA AND ORS.versusCHANCELLOR OF MEERUT UNIVERSITY (RENAMED AS CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY), RAJ BHAWAN, LUCKNOW AND ORS.

                     SRI RAJ PAL VERMA AND ORS.                               A
                                       v.
     CHANCELLOR OF MEERUT UNIVERSITY (RENAMED
     AS CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY), RAJ BHAWAN,
                  LUCKNOW AND ORS.
                                                                              B
                                  MAY 1, 1997

             [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
                      G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

        Service Law :                                                          c
        U.P. Uni1•crsity Act, 1973 :

       31(8)(a)-Cha11cellor of University-Powers of-Executive Council not
agreeing with the recomme11dution made by Selection Committee for appoint-
ment of a Professor, referred the matter to Chancellor-Chancellor finding D
that some seats of Executive Council were vacant, filled up four seats by
nomination and remitted the matter to it-Executive Council approved the
selections made by Selection Committee-Held, there is no infimzity in the
decision taken by the Chancellor in remitting the matter to Executive Council
for reconsideration-As regards Chancellor's power, to reconstitute the Coun-
cil by nominatio11 i11stead offollowing the due procedure prescribed under the E
Act, in view of the long lapse of time it is not necessary to record a11y finding
in this regard.

       S.31(1)-Appointment of Professor-Held, though the p<!rson ap-
pointed was not qualified for appoi/l/ment at first instance as he did not
possess the Ph.D. degree i11 Ancient History since 18 years have elapsed and
                                                                               F
the teacher is at the verge of retirement, the appointment is not disturbed-It
is hoped that Executive would look into the deterioration of standards of
rectitudes in management of higher educatio11al institutions and would cure
the malad~Appellant espoused good cause as a public i11terest
litigant-Public interest litigation.                                           G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 of
1997.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.94 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 38070 of 1994.                                          H
                                1175
    1176                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A          · D.D. Thakur and N.N. Bhat Petitioner-in-person for the Appellants.

         R.B. Misra, R.D. Upadhyaya and (Amlan Ghosh) (N.P.) for the
    Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
            Leave granted.

            Intervention application is dismissed.

            Here is a classic case of 'delay defeats justice'. This appeal by special
C leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
    Court, made on November 28, 1994 in Writ Petition No. 38070/94.

        It is not necessary to give in detail all the facts. Suffice it to state that
  pursuant to an advertisement on March 14, 1978 for selection to the post
D of Professor, Ancient History, Mr. KK Sharma, the 3rd respondent had
  applied for selection. While the selection was to be made by a Committee
  consisting of Vice- Chancellor, the Dean and three experts on the subject,
  of whom one was from outside the University and two from outside the
  State therein. On the day when the Committee met for selection of the
  teacher, two of the experts from outside the State did not attend the
E meeting. They appear to have acted upon the telegram sent by the Vice
  Chancellor asking them to abstain from the selection Panel. The Vice-
  Chanccllor, the Dean and the local expert Mr. K.K. Nizam from Aligarh
  University then selected Mr. K.K. Sharma. The matter was referred to the
  Executive Council. The Executive Council, the appointing authority, did
p not approve of the selection. Mr. K.K. Sharll'a was qualified only in
  modern and medieval Indian history while the candidate was required to
  possess degree in Ancient History. Accordingly, the matter was referred
  under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. University Act, (10 of 1973) (for short,
  the 'Act') to the Chancellor. The Chancellor, finding that all the scats of
  the Executive Council were not filled up, filled up four vacant seats by
G nomination, instead of following the due procedure and then referred the
  matter to the Executive Council. The Executive Council approved the
  selection made by the Selection Committee and pursuant thereto, the third
   respondent came to be appointed in March 1979 as the Professor in
   Ancient History. The appointment came to be challenged before the High
H Court. Several rounds of litigations have since taken place. Ultimately, the
      R.P. VERMA v. CHANCELLOR OF MEER UT UNIVERSITY                     1177

first appellant who is one of the Professors, challenged the said appoint-       A
ment, as stated earlier, on diverse legal grounds. The High Court has
dismissed the matter in Iimine. Since the appellant is appearing in person,
we have requested Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel, to assist the
Court. He has graciously accepted and ably assisted us. We express our
deep thanks for the valuable assistance given by him.
                                                                                 B
      The only question is : whether the action of the Chancellor in filling
up the vacancies by nomination and instead of following the due procedure
remitting the matter to the Executive Council for reconsideration of the
matter is valid in law? In other words, could he alone decide it? Section
31(8)(a) reads as under :                                                        C

        "In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the
        Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made
        by the Selection Committee. The Executive Council shall refer the
        matter to the chancellor along with the reasons of such disagree-
        ment and his decision shall be final.                                    D
      In Chapter 5, appointment dealing with "appointment and condition
of service of teachers and officers'', under sub-section (1) of Section 31 it
is provided thus :

        "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the teachers of the university   E
        and the teachers of an affiliated or associate college (other than a
        college maintained exclusively by the State Government shall be
        appointed by the Executive Council or the Management of the
        affiliated or associated college, as the case may be, on the recom-
        mendation of a Selection Committee in the manner hereinafter             F
        provided.

      The details as to the constitution of the Selection Committee and
manner of selection are not material for the purpose of this case. Section
31(8)(a) postulates that in the case of appointment of a teacher of the
University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommenda- G
tion made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council shall refer
the matter to the Chancellor along with the reasons of such disagreement,
and his decision thereon shall be final. The proviso is not necessary for the
purpose of this case, hence omitted. The contention of Shri D.D. Thakur
is that since the statute attaches finality to the decision of the Chancellor H
    1178                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A in the matter of selection of a teacher, on disagreement between Selection
  Committee and the Executive Council, the appropriate authority to decide
  the legality of selection and approval of the selection would be by the
  Chancellor. Therefore, he has no power, by necessary implication, to remit
  the matter to the Executive Council for reconsideration. He alone can
  decide it. The Chancellor has derelicted in the performance of the statutory
B duty which is in violation of Section 31(8)(a) of the Act. Though plausible,
  we find it difficult to give acceptance to the said contention. It is seen that
  when there is a difference of opinion on the selection of a teacher of the
  University or affiliated college for appointment as a Professor or Lecturer,
  as the case may be, between the Selection Committee and the Executive
C Council which is the appointing authority, the matter shall be referred to
  the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall consider the reasons given by the
  Executive Council for its disagreement with the Selection Committee and
  then he is entitled to take a decision in an appropriate manner. He should
  articulate his major premise by a reasoned order. In case the Chancellor
D feels that some material circumstances have not been considered by the
  executive committee or the same escaped their attention, instead of himself
   taking a decision, he may remit the matter to the Executive Council to
  reconsider the matter in terms of his guidance, and may also express his
  opinion for such a course of action. He may also himself take a decision
  in which event it shall be final. In the later case, the Executive Council, on
E remittance and fresh consideration may still disapprove of the selection. In
  case the Executive Council expresses opinion thereafter, the Chancellor is
  entitled to take his own decision. The decision then shall be final and, of
  course, subject to judicial review and the intermediary action of remittance
   taken by the Chancellor is not final. Under these circumstances, we hold,
F on principle, that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Chan-
   cellor in remitting the matter to the Executive Council for reconsideration.
   It is true that the Chancellor has reconstituted the committee by nomina-
   tion, instead of following the due procedure prescribed under the Act and
  loaded in favour of Mr. Sharma which may be open to grave ,doubt on the
                                                                                    -
   propriety of the course of action taken by the Chancellor. Though, prima
G facie, we are in agreement with Shri D.D. Thakur, in view of the long lapse
   of time, it is not necessary to record any finding in this regard.

          He then contends that the entire operation to be a success was done
    behind the screen by Mr. B.C. Sharma, the Vice-Chancellor to benefit the
H   third respondent, Mr. K.K. Sharma and, therefore, it is vitiated by mala
                                                                                    .....
          R.P. VERMAv. CHANCELLOR OFMEERUTUNIVERSITY                       1179

    [ides. He contends that Lill the last date prescribed to submit the applica-   A
    tion, K.K. Sharma did not have Ph.D. degree. To f~cilitate him, the
    Vice-Chancellor extended the last date of the application so as to enable
    the third respondent to become eligible to submit the application for
    selection. This is not disputed. He prevented the outside experts to par-
    ticipate in the selection by sending telegrams requesting them not to attend
    the selection as respondent No. 3 was not qualified. Thus, the respondent
                                                                                   B
    No. 3 came to be selected. It is but a stage-managed affair due to caste
    consideration.

           It is very unfortunate and sad to notice that centres of learning of
    yester years have become caste infected and caste oriented clusters and the C
    autonomy of management given to them sanctioning power gives impetus
    to camouflage the blatant misconduct generating deleterious effect on true
    and congenial atmosphere, honest learned and secular outlook for further
    education. Politicisation and division of staff on caste lines is another
    debilitating factor which need urgent attention for remedy. Teachers are D
    at the receiving end and are discouraged and demoralised. Honest and
    effective performance of the duties in teaching and in the management of
    the Universities is sagging and disappearing. Centres of learning meant to
    prepare the students with broad, enlightening and secular breed to improve
    excellence, higher learning, rational thinking and scientific temper with
    objectivity and fairness, are breeding people with narrow mind and cynical E
    attitude. Objectivity and secular outlook would be brought back on board
    only when teacher becomes Guru and serves as Guru Devo Bhava but not
    as caste demon. The true teacher scintilates the young receptive minds with
    scientific thought and encourages rational thinking and makes him progres- ·
    sive minded man to occupy any chosen faculty, profession, avocation,
                                                                                 F
    service to serve the society with pride of his alma mater.

'          The third respondent came to be appointed as late as in March 1979
    and 18 years have passed and we are informed that he is on the verge of
    retirement next year. Though he was not qualified for appointment at the
    first instance as he did not possess the Ph.D. degree in Ancient History, G
    the subject to be taught, nonetheless, since the time has run out, we decline
    to disturb the appointment of the third respondent the observation that
    there is deterioration of standards of rectitudes in management of higher
    educational institution with the fond hope that the Executive would look
    into and cure the malady and restore the lost glory of the educational H
    1180                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A institutions. University is the centre of learning and the students look to
    the teacher as real Guru Deva Bhava with all respect, reverence in the
    heart, as the true guide, mentor, frient and philosopher. Before parting
    with the matter, we are inclined to place on record our appreciation for
    the good cause espoused by the appellant as public interest litigant.

B          Thus, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs.

    R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.