AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devi Prasad Singh, J
Heard Sri K. D. Nag, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajan Roy, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, Sri S. P. Singh for the respondent University, Sri Som Kartik and the learned standing Counsel.
Short question involved in the present writ petition is, whether appointment on the post of Principal can be made without having prior approval from the ViceChancellor in terms of the provisions contained in Section 31(11) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (in short, the Act).
In brief, respondent No. 4 Rajendra Prasad Pandey was selected and appointed on the post of Principal of the Institution namely, Sri Shanker Sanskrit Vidyalay Gandhi Nagar BT, Faizabad, by the order dated 1331983. The appointment of the respondent No. 4 has been impugned on various grounds that the appointment letter was issued and the private respondent resumed duty without prior approval of the ViceChancellor. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection committee has not acted fairly and in accordance with Rules and letter of appointment was issued without approval of ViceChancellor. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Rajan Roy, submits that under First Statutes of the University namely, 11.24, all selection as existed prior to 1985, selection made by the committee of management shall be subject to approval of ViceChancellor and accordingly, the letter of appointment should have been issued. However, it has not been disputed that under Section 31(1) of the Act, it has been provided that no teacher shall be appointed unless prior approval of the ViceChancellor, is obtained. For convenience, Section 31(11) of the Act is reproduced as under :
"(11) (a) No teacher recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed by the Management of an affiliated or associated college (other than a college maintained exclusively by the State Government) unless prior approval of the ViceChancellor has been obtained.
(b) The management shall, as soon as possible, after the meeting of the Selection Committee, submit the recommendations of the Committee, along with other relevant documents to the ViceChancellor for approval.
(c) The ViceChancellor, if he is satisfied that the candidate recommended by the Selection Committee does not possess the minimum qualification or experience prescribed, or that the procedure laid down in the Act for the selection of the teacher has not been followed, shall convey to the Management his disapproval:
Provided that if the ViceChancellor does not convey his disapproval within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the documents referred to in clause (b), or does not send to the Management any intimation in connection therewith, he shall be deemed to have approved of the proposal."
It is settled law that statutory provisions contained in the Act or statutes, cannot be modified, circumvented or diluted by subordinate legislation. Whether it is statutory provision in the form of Regulations or Rules, the statutes of the University, have to be framed within the four corner of the Act. Any statute framed in derogation of the Act, shall be nullity in law. In view of the above, it was incumbent on the committee of management before issuing appointment with regard to selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 to obtain prior approval of the ViceChancellor of the University.
It is very well settled proposition of law that in case authorities want to do certain thing, then it shall be done in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or statute and not otherwise, vide : Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527, Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 SC 1077; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295 (Para 34); Chandra Kishare Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (8) SCC 266; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, 2000 (7) SCC 296; Dhanajay Reddy v. State ofKamataka, AIR 2001 SC 1512. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 (1) SCC 633; Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 486 and Ramphal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, AIR 2004 SC 1657; Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch. D. 426; Nika Ram v. State ofHimachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077; Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915; Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another v. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573; State of Bihar and others v. J.A.C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326; A.K. Roy and another v. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 2160 and State ofMizoram v. Biakchhawna, 1995(1) SCC 156. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the appointment of the respondent No. 4 and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the committee of management to forward the record to the ViceChancellor of the Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vidyalay, Varanasi, (in case already not forwarded) to look into the matter and take a decision with regard to approval for appointment of respondent No. 4. The ViceChancellor shall peruse the original record and provide opportunity of hearing to parties and thereafter take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It shall be open for the parties to submit their written representations to the ViceChancellor.
No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.