DR. UMA KANT AND ANR v. DR. BHIKA LAL JAIN AND ORS

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 415

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M.H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL, M. FATHIMA BEEVI

Case summary

Learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection Committee was valid but as regards the appointment of Dr.

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. Speeial Leaves granted. Briefly stated the facts are that University of Rajasthan invited applications for the post of Professor in the department of Botany. The Selection Committee constituted under Sec. 5 of . the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for appointment) Act of 1974 (herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1974') held interviews on 20th June, 1989 and selected Dr. G. S. Nathawat for the post of Professor in Botany. The name of Dr. Uma Kant was mentioned in the reserve list by the Selection Committee. The syndicate of the University approved the list and appointed Dr. Nathawat on the said post. Dr. Nathawat retired on 30th September, 1989 and Dr. Uma Kant who was already selected and kept in the reserve list was appointed as Professor in the department of Botany. Dr. Bhikalal, Dr. Shiv Sharma, Dr. Sudhakar Mishra and Dr. T. N.

Bhardwaj who were not selected filed a writ petition in the High Court initially chal- Ienging the appointment of Dr. Nathawat on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with law and objection was also raised that once a selected person joins the post, the reserve list exhausted itself. Dr. Bhikalal and others subsequently impleaded Dr. Uma Kant also as one of the respo~dents in the writ petition. The respondents, in their reply to the writ petition, submitted that the selection committee . was properly constituted. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was rightly made as the life of the reserve list was initially for six months and subsequently extended to one year by a resolution of the Syndicate dated 3. 12. 1983. Learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection Committee was valid but as regards the appointment of Dr.

Uma Kant from the reserve list it was held that once a person selected by the Selection Committee had been appointed the reserve list stood exhausted and the person named in the reserve list could not- be appointed against a future vacancy. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was held illegal and it was directed that Dr. Uma Kant be removed from the said post of Professor of Botany. Both Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University of Rajasthan filed special appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated March 6, 1991 upheld the order of UMA KANf v. B. L JAIN [ KASUWAL,J. ) 419 the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals. The Division Bench after considering Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974 held that the purpose of preparation of the reserve list seems to be that if the person selected at No. 1 does not join then the next man in the reserve list should be appointed.

But if the person selected by the Selection Committee is given appointment and he joins, then, selection made by the Committee is exhausted and the reserve list is qf no avail and becomes extinct. It was also held that once a person selected by the Selection Committee has joined, that post is filled and some vacancy is caused thereafter a fresh and de novo selection committee procedure has to be started because that will be a case of future vacancy arising after the post had been filled ·up on the recommendations ·or the Selection Committee. · Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University have come in appeal by grant of special leave. In order to appreciate the controversy we would advert to certain relevant provisions of the Act of 1974.

Relevant provisions of Sections 3, 5 and 6 are as follows: Section 3 - Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as from the commencement of this Act, no teacher and no of6cer in any University in Rajastban shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted under Sec. 5. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-s. (3), every appointment of a teacher or of an officer in any University made in contravention of sub-s. (1) shall be null and void. Section 5 - Constitution of Selection Committee (1) For every selection of a teacher or of an officer in a University, there shall be constituted a committee consisting of die following: - (i) Vice Chancellor of the University concerned, who shall be the Chairman of the Committee; (ii) an eminent educati0nist to be nominated by the Chancellor for a period of one year;