HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS. versus DR. P. D. KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 04-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 717 
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
DR. P. D. KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4412 of 2014 etc.) 
APRIL 04, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY ACT, 
1983: 
A 
B 
c 
ss. 6, 11 and 15 - Power of Chancellor to appoint 
Committee to inquire into illegalities and irregularities in 
selection and appointment of Senior Research Assistants and 
Junior Research Assistants - HELD: Inquiry directed by 
Chancellor into illegalities and irregularities of selection 
0 
process in appointment of Senior and Junior Research 
Assistants was legally permissible -- Exercise of such power 
is not subject to any limitation or impediment because the 
power is vested in a high constitutional functionary who is 
expected to exercise the same only when such exercise 
E 
becomes necessary to correct aberrations and streamline 
administration so as to maintain the purity of the procedures 
and process undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt 
with by it. 
ss. 11 and 15 - Report of Justice Dhabe Committee that 
F 
entire selection process was vitiated by illegalities, 
irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, appointments 
made need to be set aside - Accepted by Chancellor and 
appointments cancelled - Compliance of principles of natural 
justice - Held: Justice Dhabe Committee had issued notices 
G 
to the appointees who had in tum responded to the same -
Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice 
were violated by the Committee especially when no prejudice 
is demonstrably caused to petitioners on account of 
717 
H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A procedure which the Committee followed in concluding the 
enquiry proceedings - Further, in compliance with orders 
passed by Chancellor, Vice Chancellor of University issued 
notices to appointees calling upon them to appear before him 
for a personal hearing in support of their selection and 
B appointment as SRAs/JRAs -- The appointees filed their 
responses in required format - They were a/so given an 
opportunity of being heard by Vice Chancellor -- Thus, Vice 
Chancellor had acted fairly, and fully complied with principle 
of natural justice - No further hearing was required to be 
c repeated by Chancellor, who had before him the 
recommendations of Executive Committee and Vice 
Chancellor and took a final view of the matter having regard 
to the totality of circumstances - Continuance in office of those 
selected by means that are not fair, transparent and 
0 reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong - Therefore, 
appointments were rightly set aside by Chancellor- Directions 
give for constituting of Selection Board in terms of 
/.:mendment Act 32 of 2013 and for selection afresh giving 
age relaxation to appellants, and on their selection to give 
them benefit of continuity of service - Service Jaw -
E Administrative Jaw - Principles of natural justice - Audi alteram 
partem. 
Complaints to the Governor and Chancellor of the 
University and writ petitions before the High Court were 
F filed alleging illegalities and irregularities in the selection 
of 76 Senior Research Assistants and 55 Junior 
Research Assistants. The Chancellor in terms of s. 11 of 
the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities Act, 1983, 
appointed Justice Dhabe Committee to examine the 
G papers relating to the selection and appointments of the 
candidates and to submit a report as to its fairness. The 
Committee submitted its report concluding that the entire 
selection process and selection of the candidates to the 
posts of SRA and JRA was vitiated by the illegalities, 
H irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, the 
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. 0. 719 
KRISHI VIOYAPEETH BY REG 
appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set 
A 
aside. The Chancellor cancelled the appointments both 
. of Senior Research Assistants and of Junior Research 
Assistants. Ultimately, individual letters were issued to 
them terminating their services. The writ petitions filed by 
the appointees were dismissed by the High Court. 
B 
In the instant appeals, the following questions arose 
for consideration of the Court: 
1) 
Was the Chancellor competent to appoint a 
single Member Committee headed by Justice 
C 
H.W. Dhabe to examine the· illegalities, 
irregularities, fairness and impropriety of the 
selection 
process 
and 
consequent 
appointments to the cadre of SR

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