DR. TRILOKI NATH SINGH versus DR. BHAGWAN DIN MISRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 10-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. TRILOKI NATH SINGH 
v. 
A 
DR. BHAGWAN DIN MISRA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 10, 1990 
[A.M. AHMADI AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973: Sections 31(5), 66(9)-Panel 
of experts-Constitution of-Subjects of Hindi language and literature 
- ~-~ · and linguistics-Whether seperate subject of study. 
A Selection Committee consisting of five Members was constituted 
to recommend names for appointment to the post of Reader in 'Linguis-
tics' in the Department of Hindi of the University of Lucknow. The 
Selection Committee after interviewing the candidates recommended 
c 
-~c the name of the appellant while respondent No. 1 was placed in the 
second position. 
.i 
D 
Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court challeng-
ing the recommendations of the Selection Committee on the ground that 
the Selec'ion Committee was not legally constituted becanse three 
experts on the Committee were experts in Hindi Literature and not 
Linguistic experts. The High Court allowed the petition and inter alia 
held that under Statute 171 of the University, the Chancellor was 
E 
required to nominate experts out of the panel of experts in the subject of 
'Linguistics', which was a separte subject of study in the University; that 
the nomination of experts out of the panel drawn from the subejct of 
Hindi suffered from a serious legal infirmity; and that Explanation II to 
sub-section (5) of Section 31 of the U.P. State Universities Act, !973was 
wholly inapplicable to the instant case. 
F 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
in view of the fact that a Reader in 'Linguistics' was to be appointed in 
the Department of Hindi as such experts in Hindi Language and Litera-
ture were also qualified to act as experts for the selection of Reader in 
"Linguistics'. 
G 
Respondent No. 1, while supporting the judgment of the High 
Court, submitted that Linguistics was a separate subject of study for 
M.A. Part-I and Part-II and merely because the post of Reader in 
Linguistics was in the Department of Hindi, it would not make any 
difference and the experts of Hindi Language and Literature could not be 
H 
727 
A 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 3 S.C.R 
appointed as experts in the Selection Committee for the selection of 
.i..._ 
Reader in Linguistics. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (I) The prospectus of the University makes it abundan-
B 
tty clear that separate courses of study are prescribed foe M.A. Part 
·1 or Part II in respect of Hindi on the one hand and Linguistics on the 
other. [734B] 
c 
. (2) The subject of Hindi Language and Literature and the subject 
of Linguistics are entirely separate subjects of study. This is clearly 
borne out from Explanation I to sub-section (5)(a) of section 31 of the 
Universities Act. [733H; 734A] 
(3) Explanation I lays down in a clear manner that for the 
purpose of this sub-section, a branch of subject in which a separate 
course of study is prescribed for a post-graduate degree, or for Part I or 
D Part II thereof, shall be deemed to be a separate subject of study. [734AJ 
( 4) It is an admitted position that separate Panels of Experts were 
drawn for the subjects of Hindi and Linguistics. [732E] 
'<: 
(5) In the instant case, the advertisement no where provided that · 
E one Reader in Linguistics in the Department of Hindi was to be selected 
as common to more than one subject of study. Merely because the post 
of Reader in Linguistics was required in the Department, it cannot be 
held that such Reader in Linguistics was to teach the subject of Linguis-
tics as well as the subject of Hindi Language and Literature. [734G-HJ 
F 
(6) Explanation II to sub-section (5) of section 31 of the Uni-
versities Act can only apply in a case where one common teacher 
is to be selected for more than one subject of study and in that 
contingency it provides that the expert may belong to either of such 
subjects of study. l735A-B] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
156(N) of 1976. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.1974 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Writ Petition No. 418 of 1974. 
H 
Ms. Rachna Gupta and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant. 
• 
\ 
~· 
J 
T.N. SINGH v. B.D. MISRA [KASLIWAL, J.J 
729 
R. Hana for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KASLIW AL, J. This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is directed 
against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
(Lucknow Bench) dated 3.12.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.