TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Lucknow University invited applications for appointment of Reader in Psychology from candidates who possessed the prescribed qualifications. In response to the advertisement, several candidates filed their applications. The appellant and respondents I to 5 were some of them who offered themselves as candidates. The Committee which was constituted for selection of candidates called them for interview along with some others. After considering their qualifications, experience and relative performance in the interview, the Selection Committee graded them as follows: All the candidates who appeared for the interview possess a Ph. D. degree. Km. Neelima Misra does not possess a Ph. D. degree. Her thesis is nearing 'completion. Her thesis work alongwith her publication were scrutinised and it was found that she satisfies the condition of published work of a high standard in the subject, provided as an alternative to Ph. D. degree. All the candidates have a consistently good academic record and more than 54% marks in the M.A. Examinations, except Dr. C.B. Dwivedi, who has a 3rd Division in the High School, Dr. Ratan Singh who has 3rd Division in High School and B.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of Section 31(8)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, the Executive Council referred the matter to the Chancellor. The Chancellor, however, by order dated August 16, 1978 did not approve of the Executive Council's opinion to appoint Dr. (Km) M.R. Rastogi. The Chancellor rejected the opinion of the Executive Council and accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and directed that the appellant should be appointed as Reader. The Chancellor observed: The Selection Committee has unanimously recommended that Km. Neelima Misra be appointed to the post of Reader in Psychology. Instead of accepting this recommendation, the Executive Council held by a majority of 6:5 votes that Kumari Neelima Misra does not fulfil the requirement of essential qualifications and is not suitable for the post. It was of opinion that Dr. (Km) M.R. Rastogi who has been graded No. 2 by the Selection Committee should be appointed and that Dr. (Smt) H.K. Paintal is also suitable for the post. Km. Neelima Misra does not possess a Doctorate in the subject of study, but the Selection Committee has recorded that her thesis alongwith her publications were scrutinised and it was found that she sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order making some more observations: When difference of opinion between the Selection Committee and Executive Council is referred to the Chancellor, his position is that of an Arbitrator and there is a sort of 'lis' before him and in case the Chancellor has to agree with the Selection Committee with which the Executive Council has differed assigning particular reason, the Chancellor has to assign reasons as to why he has agreed with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. The dispute having been raised, was to be decided atleast like a dispute At this point, we may interrupt the narration and analyse Section 1 of the Act which provides procedure for selection of University eachers. Omitting unnecessary clauses, the Section reads: 31(1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the teachers of the University and the teachers of an affiliated or associated 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 recommendation of a Selection Committee in the manner hereinafter provided. XXXX XXXXX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but not more than three names for each post. The Executive Council is the principal executive body of the University whose powers and duties are provided under Section 21 of the Act. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the Executive Council has power to appoint officers, teachers and other employees of the University. The appointment shall be made on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee, which means in the order of merit of candidates arranged by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee has expert members and it has thus the expertise to judge the relative suitability of competing candidates. The Executive Council has no such experts on the subject for selection. Therefore, the Executive Council shall make appointments as per the position or ranking obtained in the recommendation, unless any other rule requires otherwise. Section 31(8)(a) seems to suggest that if the Executive Council wants to agree with the recommendation and appoint candidates in the order of merits, no reasons are to be given. But if it wants to disagree with the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it must give reasons for disagreement. It has however, no power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the provisions under the Calcutta University Act, 1979. Section 32(2) therein provides that if the Syndicate does not accept the recommendation of the Selection Committee it shall refer back the matter for reconsideration and if the Syndicate does not accept the reconsidered views, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final. Section 57(2)(e) of the Bombay University Act, 1974 is almost parallel and it states that if the Executive Council does not choose to appoint from amongst the persons recommended by the Selection Committee, it shall for reasons recorded refer to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final. The Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 by Section 27(5) also provides that if the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitor for final orders. Section 49(2) of the M.P. Vishwavidhayalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 likewise requires where the Executive Council proposes to make the appointment otherwise than in accordance with the order of merit arranged by the Select Committee it shall record its reasons and submit its proposal for sanctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling with a single isolated case. It was not deciding, like a judge in a law suit, what were the rights of the persons before it. But it was deciding how he should be treated-something analogous to a judge's duty in imposing a penalty ...... So it was easy to say that such a body is performing a quasi-judicial task in considering and deciding such a matter and to require it to observe the essentials of all proceedings of a judicial character the principles of natural justice. Sometimes the functions of a minister or department may also be of that character and then the rules of natural justice can apply in much the same way ...... Subba Rao, J., as he then was, speaking for this Court in G. Nageshwara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation, [1959] 1 SCR 3 19 put it on a different emphasis (at 353): The concept of a quasi-judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial, it describes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of its executive power ...... Prof. Wade says A judicial decision is made according to law. An administrative decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... juridically be called atleast a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly consistently with the rules of natural justice. We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept. In the light of these considerations, we revert to the central issue, that is with regard to the nature of the Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a). It may be noted that the Chancellor is one of the three authorities in the Statutory Scheme for selecting and appointing the best among the eligible candidates in the academic field. The Chancellor is not an appellate authority in matters of appointment. He is asked to take a decision, because the Executive Council who is the appointing authority has no power to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee and take a decision deviating therefrom. The Chancellor's decision is called for when the Executive Council disagree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. What is referred to the Chancellor under Section 31(8)(a) of the Act, is therefore, not a dispute between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council on any issue. Nor it is a dispute between two rival candidates on any controversy. What is referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the Lucknow University for appointment of a candidate as Professor, it was observed that the aggrieved candidate has remedy by way of representation to the Executive Council and an application for reference under Section 68 of the Act to the Chancellor . We have carefully perused the decision and that observation. We find that it is of little assistance to the present case. We are concerned with the scope of Section 31(8)(a) of the Act which was not considered in that case. Apart from that, Section 31 confers no such right to make representation to the Executive Council or to the Chancellor against the recommendation of the Selection Committee. There is no provision in the Section for hearing any candidate or the Executive Council. There is also no provision for receiving evidence. The material in respect of every candidate has already been collected and collated by the Selection Committee. Every material is on the record and the Chancellor has no power to take further evidence. The Chancellor is authorised to take a decision and he must take it on the available records since the Executive Council has not taken a decision on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raneous or irrelevant consideration. He must not act illegally, irrationally or arbitrarily. Any such illegal, irrational or arbitrary action or decision, whether in the nature of a legislative, administrative or quasi-judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As stated in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu Anr., [1974] 2 SCR 348 equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch . The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 must guide every state action, whether it be legislative executive, or quasijudicial. See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Anr., [1978] 1 SCC 248 at 283-84; Ajay Hasia Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi Ors., [1981] 1 SCC 722 at 740-41 and Som Raj Ors. v. State of Haryana, JT 1990 1SC 286 at 290. The order of the Chancellor impugned in this case indicates very clearly that he has considered the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the opinion expressed by the Executive Council. He has stated and in our opinion, very rightly that the appellant possesses the prescribed qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
