DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 813 · Decided: 24-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 813
813
DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1913 of 2022)
MARCH 24, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law: Appointment – Appellant was engaged by
Respondent-University as ‘Guest lecturer’ to teach ‘Karam Kand’
to the students in the Department of Sanskrit – University issued an
advertisement inviting application to one post of lecturer in ‘Karam
Kand’ – Appellant applied for the post – Selection Committee
recommended the candidature of appellant for appointment to said
post – But the Executive Council disagreed with the Selection
Committee on the ground that the Vice Chancellor failed to request
the Chancellor to nominate subject experts in the Selection
Committee – Accordingly, Chancellor annuled the recommendation
for appointment of appellant – Appellant filed writ petition which
was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Chancellor on
the ground that admittedly there was no University in the country
awarding a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and, therefore,
there were actually no experts in the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ –
Pursuant to the direction, the Chancellor considered the matter and
again rejected the recommendation of Selection Committee –
Appellant filed fresh writ petition – By impugned order, High Court
dismissed writ petition holding that after the order of remand, the
Chancellor had consulted a few experts and found that the subject
of ‘Karm Kand’ is altogether different from the subject ‘Sanskrit’
and that therefore, with the qualifications that the appellant
possessed, he could not be appointed – On appeal, held: The
consultations by the Chancellor with certain persons and the
information gathered by him were beyond the scope of order of
remand passed by High Court – The information collected by the
Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection
of the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the
appellant – In the absence of any specific prescription, the University
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
ought to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant
subjects, before the process of selection began – Neither the
University nor the Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that
the appellant was not qualified in the “relevant subject” – Their
initial objection was that the Selection Committee did not include
the subject experts nominated by the Chancellor – After it was
pointed out that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as
no University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the
High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the Chancellor
– The Chancellor went on a detour to find out what are the
differences between the subject of Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm
Kand’ – This was clearly erroneous – The parameters to be applied
to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil the
qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from the
parameters to be applied to a case where no specific qualifications
are prescribed for a particular post – The question as to what
constitutes “relevant subject” should have been left to the experts,
before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes
did not prescribe any specific qualifications – This did not happen
in this case – In fact the question whether subject experts were
available at all in ‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy
– The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the
tug of war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the
then Vice Chancellor, making the appellant a victim in the line of
fire – Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this
– In the case on hand no candidate was available with a post
graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which
comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found
the appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject –
The appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit
– In view of the fact (i) that the appellant has been teaching the
very same subject for the past nearly 16 years; and (ii) that the
original Selection Committee which found him eligible for
appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department of
Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part, a
direction issued to respondent-University to regularise the services
of the appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
815
All

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.