PETITIONER:
DR. ABDUL HAMEED FAZLI & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ADAM MALIK KHAN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
This Special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad made on September 4, 1990 in MCWP No. 38618/94.
The admitted position is that for one permanent post of lecturer in Islamic studies in the Department of Islamic Studies of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh an advertisement was issued pursuant to which the writ petitioners 1,3 and 4, Research Scholars in same department, together with the petitioner and another applied for selection. The Selection Committee constituted by the University conducted the selection and one Abdul Hameed Fazli, a temporary lecturer was selected and posted against the said vacancy on may 19, 1994. The same Committee selected three more persons including the petitioner and kept them in the reserve list. When the temporary vacancy had arisen the petitioner came to be appointed in the said post.
The respondents filed the writ petition on the High Court questioning the appointment of petitioner and the very power of the Executive Committee and the Selection Committee to prepare the select list and keep a reserve list for appointment against vacancies without resorting to the selection as contemplated under Section 29 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act. The Division Bench of the High Court had held that the procedure adopted the University in consituting a committee for recommendation under resolution Item No.58 and recommendation of that Committee for preparing select list and keeping that list alive for filling up the vacancies arising due to retirement etc. are in violation of Section 29(2) (a) of the Act and that, therefore, the resolution and the action of the Executive Council were ultra vires the power. Thus, this special leave petition.
Shri Bimal Roy Jad, learned consel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the view taken by the High Court is incorrect. Section 29(2) does not prohibit preparation of reserve list for appointment to meet the contingency of filling up the vacancies that would fall due to permanent incumbent’s going on deputation or on his retirement etc.; the selection process would be a tardious process taking long period for selection of the student community would stand to lose their classes. With a view to avoid such contingency, the Executive Council had resolved to recommend the procedure to be followed as policy pursuant to which it was resolved to prepare a reserve select list of candidates to fill up the vacancies that would have arisen. Since a vacancy had arisen in the Department of Islamic Studies, temporary appointment of the petitioner came to be made. This procedure is being followed even after the judgment of the High Court; as per the office proceeding of the University dated September 21, 1996 temporary appointments came to be made to several Department and, therefore, the view is not correct in law. In support thereof, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Dr. Uma Kant & Anr. v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors. [(1991) supp. 1 SCR 415].
The question is whether the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law? Section 29 of the Act reads as under:
"29. Terms and conditions of
service of teachers.-(1) All the
teachers of the University of any
of its Institutions shall, in the
contrary, be governed by the terms
and conditions of service as
specified in the statutes,
Ordinances and Regulations of the
University:
Provided that no alteration in the
salary, the rate of contribution to
the Provident fund and the age of
superannuation of a teacher in the
service of the University shall be
made to his disadvantage except
with the previous approval of the
Visitor.
(2)(a) All appointments to
permanent posts of teachers in the
University shall be made by the
Executive Council on the
recommendation of a Selection
Committee in accordance with the
provisions of these Statutes after
such posts have been duly
advertised and the candidates
concerned have been interviewed by
the Selection Committee decides to
consider the case of a candidate
otherwise than by an interview.
Except as otherwise provided for in
his contract of service every
teacher thus selected shall be
placed on probation for a period of
one year, on the expiry of which
period he may confirmed in his
post. If his not so confirmed, the
expiry of his probationary period
as may be practicable or extend the
period of his probation for one
year at the end of which, if he is
not confirmed in his post, his
service shall be dispensed with
after the expiry of the period of
extension of his probation:
Provided that, if a person in the
permanent service of the University
is appointed on probation to higher
post in the same department, he
shall not lose his lien on his
substantive post, nor shall he be
deprived of the Provident Fund
Status to which he was entitled at
the time of his appointment to the
higher post during the period of
his probation: Provided further
that the service of a teacher
appointed on probation may be
terminated at any time during the
probationary period by giving two
months’ notice without assigning
any reason.
(b) In making temporary
appointments to posts of teachers--
(i) if the temporary vacancy is for
a duration longer than one academic
session, it shall be filled on the
advice of the selection Committee
in accordance with the procedure
indicated in the preceding item
(a); and
(ii) if the temporary vacancy is
for a period less than a year, an
appointment to such vacancy shall
be made on the recommendation of a
local Selection Committee
consisting of-
(A) The Dean of the Faculty;
(B) The Head of the Department; and
(C) A nominee of the Vice-
Chancellor:
Provided that if the same person
holds the offices of the Dean and
the Head of the Department, the
Selection Committee may contain two
nominees of the Vice-Chancellor:
Provided further that in case of
sudden casual vacancies of teaching
post caused by death or any other
reason, the Dean, may in
consultation with the Head of the
Department concerned, make a
temporary appointment for a month
and report to the Vice Chancellor
and the Registrar about such
appointment."
A reading of Section 29 would indicate that all appointments to permanent posts of teachers in the University shall be made by the Executive Council on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of the statute. Such posts shall be duly advertised and the candidates concerned would have an opportunity of being interviewed by the Selection Committee except in cases where such Committee decides to consider the case of a candidate otherwise than by an interview. The object thereby is that all the permanent vacancies should be filled up by advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible persons to claim for selection by the Selection Committee in regular process. This Court in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. Chairman, BSRB & Ors. [(1996)1 SCC 283] laid down as under:
"Article 14 read with Article 16(1)
of the Constitution enshrines
fundamental right to every citizen
to claim consideration for
appointment to the post under the
State. Therefore, vacant post
arising or expected should be
notified inviting applications from
all eligible candidates to be
considered for their selection in
accordance with their merit. The
recruitment of the candidates in
excess of the notified vacancies is
a denial and deprivation of the
constitutional right under Article
14 read with Article 16 (1) of the
Constitution. The procedure
adopted. therefore, in appointing
the persons kept in waiting list by
the respective Boards, though the
vacancies had arisen subsequently
without being notified for
recruitment, is unconstitutional.
However, since the appointments
have already been made and none was
impleaded, we are not inclined to
interfere with these matters
adversely affecting their
appointments. However, hereafter
the respective Board should notify
the existing and expected vacancies
and the Recruitment Board should
get advertisement published and
recruitment should strictly be made
by the respective Boards in
accordance with the procedure to
the notified vacancies but not to
any vacancies that my arise during
the process of selection."
It was reiterated in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri [1992 SCC (L & S) 999] and state of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistants Successful Examinees Union [AIR 1994 SC 736]. In the recent judgment of this court in Prem Singh & Ors. v. Haryana State Elect. Board & Ors. [JT (1996) 5 SC 219], it has been held that the Selection Committee cannot make selection for future vacancies and fill up posts from the reserve list of candidates; vacancies should be advertised and selection should be duly made giving an opportunity to all the candidates. In Dr. Uma Kant’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel, the position was that Section 6 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 itself gives power to prepare a select list of 50% of the posts advertised so that if any candidate selected does no join the post after appointment, the candidates in the waiting list would be appointed. The candidates in the waiting list would be appointed. The list shall remain valid for six months. Therein, Dr. Uma Kant was No.1 in the wait list of candidates and when one of selected candidates did not join, he came to be appointed. When his appointment was challenged, the High Court had set aside the appointment and directed for regular selection. This Court had reversed the view of the High Court holding that since Section 6 gives that power, the appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and preparation of the select list of 50% of advertised posts was held valid in law. The ratio therein has no application to the facts in this case.
It is seen that Section 29 itself is a source of power for recruitment and the procedure to be followed. With regard to even the temporary vacancies Section 29(2) (a) itself gives the procedure as to the manner in which the temporary vacancies are to be filled up by selection by a committee constituted in that behalf as envisaged therein. Thereby, the Legislature has given an indication of method through which even the temporary posts could be filled up and the temporary appointments are regulated thereunder.
The object thereby would be to streamline the expediency and efficacy in the selection process so that candidates selected should know their rights acquired thereunder. The appointment of temporary candidates after keeping them in the posts for long time unduly creates an expectation of confirmation which is later claimed; they are though belied of their right, many a time. It would generate unnecessary feeling of denial of right to equality with others and a source of nepotism to keep the candidates in the animated expectation of service for obvious reasons. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is perfectly legal and unexceptionable. It does not call for interference. Even the appointment subsequently made were in the teeth of the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High Court. We need not express any opinion on that since the same has not been questioned, but that will not be taken as an instance of the validity of the exercise of power by the Vice Chancellor.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. The University is directed to fill up even the temporary posts in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 29 itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months form the date of the receipt of this order.