DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA V/S STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.,2022 

INTRODUCTION 

In the above case the Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University issued an order declaring non selection of the appellant for the post of lecturer in the University. A writ petition to quash the order was preferred by the appellant before the Allahabad High court but was dismissed. Hence the appellant is before the Apex Court. 

FACTS 

In the above case, the state of U.P.(herein, respondents) issued a vacancy for the post of professor in the subject of ‘karm kand’ in the department of Sanskrit by an order dated 22.10.1996 in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University (to be referred as ‘the University’).One Dinesh Chandra Shukla (herein, appellant) was appointed as a guest lecturer in the University for teaching the subject on a fixed remuneration of Rs.250/- per lecture and Rs.5000/- per month. Simultaneously,a proposal for permanent appointment of lecturer for the said post was put forth which was accepted by the Vice-

chancellor of the University, followed by publication of an advertisement vide year 2006, without the fact being in the Chancellor’s knowledge. 

Infuriated by the recruitment process undertaken by the Vice-chancellor he issued an oral direction to call off the same on the basis of anticipated retirement (dated 31.12.2007) of the Vice- chancellor. This ensued a rivalry between the two dignitaries. Consequently the Allahabad High Court asserted that the executive actions of the vice-chancellor cannot be vitiated merely on the basis of an oral order. Subsequently the selection committee recommended the candidature of the appellant . However, the Executive Council disapproved the recommendation(s) as no subject expert was included in the committee. The recommendations were further annulled by the chancellor via an order when referred to him under Section 31(8)(a) proviso of The U.P State Universities Act, 1973. 

The appellant filed a writ petition against the order and the matter was remanded back to the chancellor to be reconsidered as admittedly there was no University in the Country providing degree in the field of Karm Kand suffice it to conclude that there was/were no expert in the said field to be the part of the selection committee. Nevertheless an order, rejecting the committee’s recommendations was again issued by the chancellor. Assailing the same writ petition was preferred by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court but was not allowed. Hence an appeal is preferred before the Apex Court. 

Issues 

1) Whether the appellant is qualified to be appointed for the post of lecturer in ’karm kand’. 

2) Whether dismissal of recruitment of the appellant for the post of lecturer was justified? 

3) Whether there was fault on the part of University members in issuing advertisement/ vacancy for the post of lecturer? 

Contention/arguments 

1) Whether the appellant is qualified to be appointed as lecturer in ’karm kand’. 

– To begin with, the appellant was appointed as a guest lecturer in the same University @ fixed remuneration of Rs.250/- per lecture and Rs.5000/- per month

for teaching the same subject for about 16 years for which advertisement was issued. 

– Secondly, amidst the pendency of the writ petition pertaining to the recruitment of appellant, the Academic Council accepted the recommendation of the Head of Department (HOD) of Sanskrit 

(Under Section 25(1)(c) of the U.P. University Act,1973) that the qualification of professor in the subject of karm kand and Sanskrit be kept the same, which the High Court omitted to take note of. 

– The representative of HOD, Sanskrit in the executive council claimed that the appellant possessed the desired qualification(s). 

– Moreover, the executive council refused recruitment of appellant on the ground of non-inclusion of subject experts in the selection committee and not due to lack of any qualification(s). 

2) Whether dismissal of recruitment of the appellant for the post of lecturer was justified? 

– Needless to say that the appellant was qualified for the said post on the grounds of aforementioned contentions, his selection was disapproved despite relevant qualifications. 

– He had been teaching the subject to the students of the same University, pursuing a one year diploma course in the field of ‘karm kand’, consecutively for 16 years from 2006. 

– Apparently, the entire recruitment process, including the selection of the appellant became inevitable sufferers of the controversy prevailing between the Chancellor and the Vice-chancellor of the University. 

– Further, Initially the Chancellor dismissed his selection on the ground of non-inclusion of any subject expert(s) in the selection committee and later on he stated that the appellant is not qualified by not holding a master’s degree in the subject. 

3) Whether there was fault on the part of University members in issuing advertisement/ vacancy for the post of lecturer. 

– It was not stipulated in the advertisement that the applicant should possess a master’s degree in the specified subject or relevant subject. 

– On the same line, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that neither the Statutes of the University specify any qualification (s) in ‘karm kand’ nor did the advertisement indicate any specific qualification except post graduation degree in the relevant subject. 

COURT’S OBSERVATION

– Notably the appellant had been teaching the subject of karm kand in the same University for around 16 years. 

– Furthermore, no specific criteria for the post of lecturer in the University was included in the advertisement. Nevertheless the question of relevant qualification(s) could have been referred to the subject experts but the matter whether experts were at all available or not itself became a controversial matter that emerged as a consequence of rivalry between the two dignitaries that affected the selection of tha appellant. 

– The Apex court reprimanded that on the matter being remanded whether there were any subject expert(s) in the field of karm kand to be included in the selection committee the chancellor went to discover the difference between the subject of karm kand and Sanskrit. This raises a suspicion on the part of the Chancellor and the High Court omitted to take note of this fact. 

– As per the Statute 11.01(1) of the University first Statutes,1977 for the post of lecturer in the University a master’s degree or equivalent degree in “relevant subject” is the criteria. However what constitutes a ‘relevant subject ’ was not specified. The court relied upon two cases : 

– Punjab University vs. Narinder Kumar and Others,1999 – Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University, 2014 

– The recommendation of the HOD of Sanskrit that qualifications for Sanskrit and karm kand should remain the same was accepted by the Academic Council during the pendency of writ petition which the High Court failed to consider. 

JUDGEMENT 

The Apex court allowed the civil appeal and declared the High Court’s decision as erroneous and remanded it for reconsideration pursuant to the following : 

1) The appellant had been teaching the subject of karm kand in the said University previously also for 16 years. 

2) On the recommendation of the selection committee for approval of appellant’s candidature the University was directed to resume his services.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, in the case of Dinesh Chandra Shukla v/s State of U.P. & ors., The court analyzed the case in depth and found the apparent cause of disqualification of the appellant that remained unnoticed by the High court. At the outset the case involved interpretation of the relevant qualifications that needs to be clearly specified beforehand by an institution prior to inviting applications for the concerned post/vacancy . This will avoid unnecessary uncertainty as to qualification(s). 

Reference(s) 

1) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33524614/ 

This article is written by Nandini Sharma of Shambhunath Institute of Law, intern at Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin