SRI RAJ PAL VERMA AND ORS. versus CHANCELLOR OF MEERUT UNIVERSITY (RENAMED AS CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY), RAJ BHAWAN, LUCKNOW AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1175 · Decided: 01-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SRI RAJ PAL VERMA AND ORS. 
v. 
CHANCELLOR OF MEERUT UNIVERSITY (RENAMED 
AS CH. CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY), RAJ BHA WAN, 
LUCKNOW AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND 
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
U.P. Uni1•crsity Act, 1973 : 
A 
B 
c 
31(8)(a)-Cha11cellor of University-Powers of-Executive Council not 
agreeing with the recomme11dution made by Selection Committee for appoint-
ment of a Professor, referred the matter to Chancellor-Chancellor finding D 
that some seats of Executive Council were vacant, filled up four seats by 
nomination and remitted the matter to it-Executive Council approved the 
selections made by Selection Committee-Held, there is no infimzity in the 
decision taken by the Chancellor in remitting the matter to Executive Council 
for reconsideration-As regards Chancellor's power, to reconstitute the Coun-
cil by nominatio11 i11stead off ollowing the due procedure prescribed under the 
Act, in view of the long lapse of time it is not necessary to record a11y finding 
in this regard. 
S.31(1)-Appointment of Professor-Held, though the p<!rson ap-
pointed was not qualified for appoi/l/ment at first instance as he did not 
possess the Ph.D. degree i11 Ancient History since 18 years have elapsed and 
the teacher is at the verge of retirement, the appointment is not disturbed-It 
is hoped that Executive would look into the deterioration of standards of 
rectitudes in management of higher educatio11al institutions and would cure 
the malad~Appellant espoused good cause as a public i11terest 
litigant-Public interest litigation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3693 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.94 of the Allahabad High 
E 
F 
G 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 38070 of 1994. 
H 
1175 
1176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
· D.D. Thakur and N.N. Bhat Petitioner-in-person for the Appellants. 
B 
R.B. Misra, R.D. Upadhyaya and (Amlan Ghosh) (N.P.) for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Intervention application is dismissed. 
Here is a classic case of 'delay defeats justice'. This appeal by special 
C leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court, made on November 28, 1994 in Writ Petition No. 38070/94. 
It is not necessary to give in detail all the facts. Suffice it to state that 
pursuant to an advertisement on March 14, 1978 for selection to the post 
D of Professor, Ancient History, Mr. KK Sharma, the 3rd respondent had 
applied for selection. While the selection was to be made by a Committee 
consisting of Vice- Chancellor, the Dean and three experts on the subject, 
of whom one was from outside the University and two from outside the 
State therein. On the day when the Committee met for selection of the 
teacher, two of the experts from outside the State did not attend the 
E meeting. They appear to have acted upon the telegram sent by the Vice 
Chancellor asking them to abstain from the selection Panel. The Vice-
Chanccllor, the Dean and the local expert Mr. K.K. Nizam from Aligarh 
University then selected Mr. K.K. Sharma. The matter was referred to the 
Executive Council. The Executive Council, the appointing authority, did 
p 
not approve of the selection. Mr. K.K. Sharll'a was qualified only in 
modern and medieval Indian history while the candidate was required to 
possess degree in Ancient History. Accordingly, the matter was referred 
under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. University Act, (10 of 1973) (for short, 
the 'Act') to the Chancellor. The Chancellor, finding that all the scats of 
the Executive Council were not filled up, filled up four vacant seats by 
G nomination, instead of following the due procedure and then referred the 
matter to the Executive Council. The Executive Council approved the 
selection made by the Selection Committee and pursuant thereto, the third 
respondent came to be appointed in March 1979 as the Professor in 
Ancient History. The appointment came to be challenged before the High 
H Court. Several rounds of litigations have since taken place. Ultimately, the 
R.P. VERMA v. CHANCELLOR OF MEER UT UNIVERSITY 
1177 
first appellant who is one of the Professors, challenged the said appoint-
ment, as stated earlier, on diverse legal grounds. The High Court has 
dismissed the matter in Ii mine. Since the appellant is appearing in person, 
we have requested Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel, to assist the 
Court. He has gra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.