POORAN CHAND versus CHANCELLOR & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 29-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 782
782
POORAN CHAND
v.
CHANCELLOR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 268-269 of 2021)
JANUARY 29, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002:
s.53 – Applications invited for the post of Assistant Professors,
Professors, Associate Professor and Lecturers – Appellant applied
for the post of Assistant Professor whereas respondent no. 4 applied
for the post of Lecturer – Appellant was selected and joined as
Assistant Professor on 08.12.2005 – Respondent no. 4 joined as
Lecturer on 8.8.2005 – Respondent no. 4 was promoted on the post
of Assistant Professor on 8.8.2007 – Representations were submitted
by respondent no. 4 to the university claiming seniority over the
appellant based on his experience at the time of appointment as
Senior Research Fellow in WHO – Chancellor rejected the
representation of respondent no. 4 referring to the report sent by
the University that experience as senior Research Fellow in WHO
cannot be counted as experience – Respondent no. 4 filed writ
petition – In writ petition, both the appellant as well as University
contested the claim of respondent no. 4 – High Court allowed the
writ petition – On appeal, held: s.53 provides that if any question
arises as to whether any person has been duly elected or appointed,
the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, and the decision of
the Chancellor thereon shall be final – s.53 also contains proviso
to the effect that no reference in this Section shall be made more
than three months after the date when question could have been
raised for the first time – The object and purpose for entertaining
any question regarding appointment within a period of three months
is that the members of the teaching faculty of the University be it
Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which
is to be imparted according to academic calendar and it is in the
interest of the University that all doubts regarding appointment of
teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early
decision by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
783
University – The present is not a case where appointment of appellant
was cancelled by any competent authority – Appellant was
appointed, recommended by Selection Committee with due approval
of the Executive Council and the appointment was made after
advertisement – Challenge to appointment after more than three
years cannot be entertained as respondent No.4 in his representation
before the Chancellor never challenged the appointment of
appellant as Assistant Professor and had filed representation only
claiming seniority over appellant after he got promoted as Assistant
Professor himself in the year 2007 – Therefore, High Court ought
not to have entertained the challenge to the appointment of appellant
and ought to have confined the consideration of claim of respondent
No.4 for seniority over the appellant – When the appointment of
appellant was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions
of the Act, 2002, it is not in the ends of justice to permit the
respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in the High Court
in the writ petition for the first time, after more than four years of
the appointment – There was no error in the order of the Chancellor
rejecting the representation made by the respondent No.4 – Service
law – Seniority – Universities – Education/Educational Institutions.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no dispute to the fact that in pursuance
of advertisement, both appellant and respondent No.4 had
applied respectively for the post of Assistant Professor and
Lecturer and Selection Committee recommended their
appointment and Executive Council in the meeting dated
08.08.2005 approved the recommendations of Selection
Committee appointing appellant as Assistant Professor and
respondent No.4 as Lecturer. [Para 9][791-D-E]
2. The University in its counter affidavit has relied and
referred to Section 53 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2002. Section 53
provides that if any question arises whether any person has been
duly elected or appointed, the matter shall be referred to the
Chancellor, and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be
final. The Section also contains proviso to the effect that no
reference in this Section shall be made more than three months
POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7

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