KM. NEELIMA MISRA versus DR. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 21-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
KM. NEELIMA MISRA 
v. 
DR. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 21, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHE1TY AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: Section 31(8)(a) 
University-Procedure for selection of teachers-Recommendation of _ 
Selection Committee-Executive CouncU's disagreement with recom-
\ 
mendation-Reference to Chancellor-Chancellor's decision final-
}. 
Nature and scope of Chancellor's function-Held administrative in 
nature-Does not require application of principle of natural justice-
Section 3 I confers no right to make representation to Executive Council 
or to the Chancellor against the recommendation of selection Commit-
tee-But eligible candidate has a right to have his case considered. 
Service Law-Judicial review of academic appointments-
Academic appointments based on recommendations of Experts-In the 
absence of mala fides Court should he slow to interfere with experts 
opinion. 
E 
Administrative 
law-Quasi-judicial function-Administrative 
function-Distinction between-Power to make binding and conclusive 
orders-ls not by itself a decisive factor that power is judicial-
Existence of other characteristics necessary. 
ConstitutiOn of India, 1950: Article 14--State action-Legislative. 
F 
executive or quasi-judicial-Must be guided by principle of equality. 
i 
The appellant and the respondents applied for the post of Reader 
I 
in Psychology in Lucknow University. Under the University Statute, the 
minimum qualification for the post was a Doctorate degree or a 
published work of high standard in the subject. The respondents 
G 
possessed Pb. D. degree, while the appellant's thesis was nearing 
completion. 
On the basis of her experience, performance at the interview and 
published work, which was found to be of high standard on the subject, 
the Selection Committee recommended the appellant's appointment by 
-<._ 
H 
grading her No. I. 
84 
.. 
.---
N. MISRA v, DR. H.K. PAINTAL 
85 
By a split of the majority, the Executive Council disagreed with 
the recommendation of the Selection Committee on 'the ground that the 
appellant did not possess the essential qualification for the post of 
Reader and it preferred the appointment of respondent No. 2. 
In view of the Council's disagreement, the matter was referred to 
the Chancellor for his decision under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State 
Universities Act, 1973. The Chancellor rejected the opinion of Execu-
tive Council and accepted the ' recommendations of the Selection 
Committee and directed that the appellant should be appointed as a 
Reader. 
Respondent No. 1 challenged the Chancellor's order by filing a 
writ petition in the High Court, which following its earlier Full Bench 
decision wherein it was held that the Chancellor must explicitly state the 
reasons for his decision and was enjoined by the Act to act quasi-
judicially quashed the Chancellor's order with a direction to reconsider 
the matter. 
In the appeal to this Court on the question of the nature ot the 
Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities 
Act,, 1973: Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High 
Court, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD: I. Three authorities are involved in the Selection of 
E 
University teachers' (i) Selection Committee, (ii) Executive Council and 
(iii) The Chancellor. The Selection Committee for appointment of Uni-
versity teachers is a recommendatory body the composition of which 
has been prescribed under section 31(4)(a). The Executive Council is 
the principle executive body of the University. Subject to the provisions 
of the Act, it has power to appoint officers, teachers and other 
F 
employees of the University. Section 31(8)(a) seems to suggest that ifthe 
Executive Council wants to agree with the recommendation and appoint 
candidates in the order of merits, no reasons are to be given. But if it 
wants to disagree with the recommendations mady by the Selection 
Committee, it must give reasons for disagreement. It has however, no 
power to override the recommendation and appoint a candidate of its 
G 
own choice. It may disagree, bot should give reasons for disagreement 
and refer the matter under section 31(8)(a) to the Chancellor. Then the 
decision of the Chancellor shall be binding on the Executive Council. 
The Chancellor is not an appellate authority in matters of appointment. 
His decision is called for when the Executive Council disagree with the 
recommendation of th

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