DR. UMA KANT AND ANR versus DR. BHIKA LAL JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 04-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

a 
....i.-
DR. UMA KANT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DR. BHIKA LAL JAIN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 4, 1991 
[M.H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.) 
B 
Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for appoint-
ment) Act, 1974: 
Sections 3(1) & 5(1)--Expression 'Appointment' and 'For every selection'-
C 
Scope of. 
Section 6-Appointment of Professor-Selection Committee-Con-
stitution and procedure-Preparation of 'Selection List' and 'Reserve List' 
-
Approval by University Syndicate-Appointment of candidate included 
in the Selection List-Superannuation of appointed candidate-Appoint-
ment of candidate recommended in the Reserve List- Validity of- Held 
with the appointment of candidate included in the Selection List, Rese1Ve 
List does not become extinct-Appointment of candidate recommended in 
the Reserve List held valid-Purpose of Reserve List explained. 
Section 3(1) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers 
(Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974- provides that no teacher in any 
University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommen-
dations of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 5, and, -
under Section 3(2) any appointment made in contravention of Section 3(1) 
is null and void. Section 6(4) of the Act provides that the Selection 
Committee, while making its recommendations to the Syndicate, shall 
prepare a list of candidates selected by it in order of merit and shall 
further prepare a Reserve List in ~he same order and to the extent of 50% 
of the vacancies for the post of teachers or officers. 
D 
E 
F 
The University of Rajasthan invited applications for the post of G 
Professor in the Department of Botany. The Selection Committee 
rec-ommended the name of a candidate in its selection list which was 
approved by the University Syndicate and the recommended candidate was 
appointed as Professor. The appellant's name was included in the Reserve 
List which was to remain valid for one year as _per the Syndicate's H 
415 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 1 S. C."R. 
A resolution. Subsequent to the retirement of the initially appointed 
Professor, the appellant, who was on the reserve list, was appointed as 
Professor. The .non selected candidates challenged the appointment of 
initially appointed Professor as well as of the appellant and a Single Judge 
of the High Court held the Selection Committee's constitution valid but 
B declared the appellant's appointment illegal on the ground that once a 
person selected by the Selection Committee is appointed, the reserve list 
gets exhausted and the person named in the reserve list cannot be 
appointed against a future vacancy. 
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order 
C . of the Single Judge by holding .that once a person selected by the Selection 
Committee joins the reserve list becomes extinct and if some vacancy is 
caused thereafter, a fresh and de novo Selection Committee procedure is 
to be started. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, 
appeals were filed in this Court. 
D 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court, 
this Court, 
HELD: 1. A reserve list is always prepared to meet the contingency of 
anticipated or future vacancies caused on account of resignation, 
E retirement, promotion or otherwise. This is done in view of the fact that it 
takes a long time in constituting a fresh Selection Committee whic~ has a 
cumbersome procedure and in order to avoid ad hoc appointments 
keeping in view the interest of the student community. [ 422 F] 
2. The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the scope 
F . of reserve list only against the post for which the selection was made ali.d 
which according to it could only be available to the incumbent in the 
reserve list if the person recommended in the main list did notjoin such 
post. Thus it was wrong in taking the view that a regular vacancy of 
Professor having arisen on the retirement of initially appointed Professor, 
G again a fresh Selection Committee should h~ve been constituted and no 
appointment on such post could have been made from the reserve list 
prepared by the Selection Committee. The interpretation given by the High 
Court is not borne out from any of the provisions of Section 3(1), Section 5 
or sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan UniversilJ Teachers and 
H Officers (Selection for appointment) Act, 1974. [423 B; 42_2 C-D] 
... =
UMA KANT v. B. L JAIN 
417 
3. Sec

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