DR. MAHAK SINGH versus CHANCELLOR, CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY, MEERUT AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 31-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DR. MAHAK SINGH 
v. 
CHANCELLOR, CH. CHARAN SINGH 
UNIVERSITY, MEERUT AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 3 I, 1996. 
[N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
C 
Appointment-Acting Principal-Of affiliated Col/ege-Inter-se 
seniority between senior lecturers-Determination of--For stop-gap 
appointment as Acting Principal-Held: General bio-data and not service 
bio-data assumed importance especially when both candidates were equally 
placed on the same grade when vacancy arose-Jn such circumstances, 
even assuming one candidate to be senior to the other, on basis of his 
D seniority over the other in lower post of lecturer, in vew of pendency of 
crhninal charge under S.302 !PC against one candidate, relief refused to 
such candidate-UP. State Universities Act, 197 3-First Statutes of Meerut 
University, Statutes 11. 34, 13.20, 18.05 and 18.16--Constitution of India, 
1950, Art. 136. 
E 
Seniority-Remedies-Delay in seeking of-Senior lecturer put in 
service of seven years-When vacancy of Acting Principal arose, said senior 
lecturer claimed he should have been treated to be appointed from date 
earlier than that mentioned in appointment order-Held: in absence of 
any objection being taken by said senior lecturer during that period, said 
F claim rejected. 
Seniority-Senior lecturer-Inter-se seniority between-For stop-gap 
appointment as Acting Principal-All candidates worked as senior lecturers 
on date when vacancy of Principal arose-One of them designated as 
Reader-Held: Jn such circumstances, one of them who had been designated 
G as Reader in past could not invoke Statute 18. 05 of the First Statutes of 
Meerut University to claim seniority over other candidates. 
Seniority-lnter-se seniority-lecturers in affiliated college-Both 
candidates appointed as lecturers on same day-One was appointed on 
H regular basis and other, who was unqualified/or such appointment, granted 
180 
MAHAK SINGH v. CHANCELLOR CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY l 8 l 
relaxation on subsequent date-Held: In such circumstances, regularly A 
appointed candidate senior to other candidate. 
The appellant and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 were working as 
senior lecturers in a college affiliated to an University. The appellant 
and respondent No. 3 were appointed as lecturers on 9-7-1959, 
designated as Heads of Department on 6-11-1963 and as senior lecturer B 
on 1-1-1986. Respondent No. 5, who was also appellant in the 
companion appeal, was appointed as lecturer on 9-7-1961, was 
designated as head of Department on 25-8-1964 and as senior lecturer 
on 31-1-1986. The post of Principal of the college fell vacant on 1-10-
1993 when all the aforesaid three persons were working as senior 
lecturers and were drawing the same emoluments in the same grade. C 
The High Court held that being the seniormost, respondent No. 3 
was entitled to work as Acting Principal till the appointment of a 
regular Principal. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present 
appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that Respondent D 
No. 3, being not qualified, was granted relaxation on a date subsequent 
to the date of his appointment as lecturer; and that he was, therefore, 
senior to Respondent No. 3. 
On behalf of respondent No. 5 it was contended that his date of E 
appointment as senior lecturer should be treated as 1-1-1986 and not 
as 31-1-1986 and that having worked as Reader sometime in the post, 
he should have been treated, by virtue of Statutes 18.05 and 18.16 of 
the First Statutes of Meerut University, formed under the U.P. State 
Universities Act, 1973, as the senior most of the three contestants: 
and that the credentials of the appellant were themselves not F 
impeacable and unimpeachable inasmuch as several criminal cases 
· were registered against him including one under Section 302 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I .I. It is not possible to accept the contention of Respondent 
No. 5 that his date of appointment as senior lecturer should be treated 
as 1-1-1986 and not 31-1-1986, because he should have made such a 
grievance at the relevant time. Years have rolled by still he never made 
G 
a grievance about the same and accepted the decision that he was to H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A be designated as senior lecturer only from 31-1-1986. It was too late for 
him to raise this contention after seven years. [185-H,186-A-B] 
1.2. On the date on which the vacancy of Principal occur

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