Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1042 (ALL)

KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-04-22

JAYASHREE TIWARI, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2011
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Shri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri G.K. Singh for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Neeraj Tripathi appears for Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. Shri Ajit Kumar Singh appears for the University. 2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 23/28th December, 2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi (the University), in so far as he has accepted the disagreement of the Executive Council of the University in its resolution dated 23.6.2010 to the selections of the petitioners as Lecturers (petitioner Nos. 1 to 4), Reader (petitioner No. 5) and Professor (petitioner No. 6), by direct recruitment by the selection committee in pursuance to advertisement No. 2 of 2006 followed by advertisement No. 6 of 2006 published by the University. The Chancellor has accepted the disagreement on the ground that one of the subject expert was not present in the selections in violation of Section 31 (5) (a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (in short the Act), and if any subject expert has expressed his inability to attend the meeting of the selection committee, the Vice-Chancellor should have invited the next subject expert in the list of nominations of such experts provided by the Chancellor. 3. Section 31 (5) (a) of the Act is quoted as below : “31. Appointment of Teachers...... (5) (a) A panel of six or more experts in each subject of study shall be drawn up by the Chancellor after consulting the corresponding Faculty in Indian Universities or such academic bodies or research institutions in or outside Uttar Pradesh as the Chancellor may consider necessary, Every expert to be nominated by the Chancellor under sub-section (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on such panel. (b) The Board of each Faculty shall maintain a standing panel of sixteen or more experts in each subject of study, and every expert to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor under sub-section (4) shall be a person whose name is borne on the panel. (c) A panel referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be revised after every three years. (c) A panel referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be revised after every three years. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a branch of subject in which a separate course of study is prescribed for a postgraduate degree or for Part I or Part II thereof shall be deemed to be a Separate subject of study. Explanation II.—Where the post of teacher to be selected is common to more than one subject of study, the expert may belong to either of such subjects of study. (d) The Chancellor or the Vice-Chancellor, as the case may be, may intimate in a specified order, a larger number of names of experts than required under sub-section (4) for serving as his nominees on the Selection Committee. In such case, on any person whose name appears higher in the specified order not being available for a meeting of the Selection Committee, a person whose name appears nearest lower in the specified order shall be requested to serve on the Committee.” 4. A tabular chart of the subjects; posts and categories in which the petitioners had applied; the dates when the selection committee met; the experts panel provided by the Chancellor through his letter dated 16.11.2006; the name of the experts present in the selection committee and those who could not appear and attend inspite of their consent taken by the Vice-Chancellor, is given as below : “Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh Petitioner No. 1 Subject: Social Work Post: Lecturer Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 18.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. K.K. Mukhopadhyay 1. Prof. N. Vanketswami Reddi University of Delhi, D. Bangalore University, K. 2. Prof. P.V. Rajalakshmi 2. Telephonic consent of one expert S.P.M. University, Chittoor, A.P. is mentioned in the minute of 3. Prof. N. Venkateswamy Reddy Executive Council dated Bangalore University, K. 26.5.2010. 4. Prof. B. Jayathutram Andhra University, A.P. 5. Prof. Shad Bano Ahmad A. Muslim University, Aligarh “Dr. Amit Kumar Singh Petitioner No. 2 Subject: Economics Post: Lecturer Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 16.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. Prof. Shad Bano Ahmad A. Muslim University, Aligarh “Dr. Amit Kumar Singh Petitioner No. 2 Subject: Economics Post: Lecturer Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 16.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. G. Savaraich 1. Prof. G. Savaraich Venkateswara University, A.P. Venkateswara University, A.P. 2. Prof. V.K. Parikh 2. Telephonic consent of one expert Vikram University, M.P.P. is mentioned in the minute of 3. Prof. R. Arunchalam Executive Council dated University of Madras, T.N. 26.5.2010. 4. Prof. Balwant Kandoni Punjab University, Ch. 5. Prof. S. Giriappa Mangalore University “Dr. Chandra Shekher Singh Petitioner No. 3 Subject: Social Work Post: Lecturer Category: reserved for OBC direct post Date of Selection Committee: 18.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. K.K. Mukhopadhyay 1. Prof. N. Vanketswamy Reddy University of Delhi, D. Bangalore University 2. Prof. P.V. Rajalakshmi 2. Telephonic consent of one expert S.P.M. University, Chittoor, A.P. is mentioned in the minute of 3. Prof. N. Venkateswamy Reddy Executive Council dated Bangalore University, K. 26.5.2010. 4. Prof. B. Jayathutram Andhra University, A.P. 5. Prof. Shad Bano Ahmad A. Muslim University, Aligarh “Dr. Nisha Singh Petitioner No. 4 Subject: English Post: Lecturer Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 9.9.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection Dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. S. Chakrabarti 1. Prof. S. Ravindran University of Delhi, N.D. University of Calicut, Kel. 2. Prof. S. Ravindran 2. Telephonic consent of one expert University of Calicut, Kel. is mentioned in the minute of 3. Prof. Chelliah Executive Council dated Madhuri K. University, T.N. 26.5.2010. 4. Prof. K.C. Belliappa University of Mysore, Kar. 5. Prof. Ranjana Harish Gujarat University, Gujarat “Dr. Sharad Bansal Petitioner No. 5 Subject: Fine Art (Lalit Kala) Post: Reader Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 23.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection Dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. M. Gufran Kidwai 1. Pro. Sharad Bansal Petitioner No. 5 Subject: Fine Art (Lalit Kala) Post: Reader Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 23.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection Dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. M. Gufran Kidwai 1. Pro. M. Gufran Kidwai Jamia Millia Islamia, N.D Jamia Millia Islamia, N.D 2. Prof. O.S. Thiagrarajan 2. Prof. O.S. Thiagrarajan Annamalai University, T.N. Annamalai University, T.N. 3. Prof. Utpala Goswami 3. Telephonic consent of one expert Rabindra Bharti University, W.B. is available on the record 4. Prof. M.S. Shouq mentioned in the minute of University of Kashmir, J.K. Executive Council dated 5. Prof. Maya Rani Tak 26.5.2010. University of Rajasthan “Dr. Ravi Prakash Pandey Petitioner No. 6 Subject: Sociology Post: Professor Category: General/Unreserved Direct Post Date of Selection Committee: 17.11.2007 Experts Panel given by the Chancellor From the Chancellor’s panel subject through his letter No. P/A. 258/P.S.G. expert present in the selection Dated 16.11.2006, are as below committee 1. Pro. Virginius Xaxa 1. Prof. P.G. Jogdand University of Delhi, N.D. University of Mumbai, 2. Prof. T. Chandramohan Reddy Maharashtra. Bharathiar University, TN 2. Prof. Sathyanarayana 3. Prof. P.G. Jogdand University of Mysore, University of Mumbai, Karnataka Maharashtra. 4. Prof. Sathyanarayana 3. Telephonic consent of one expert University of Mysore, Karnataka is available on the record 5. Prof. M.K. Teja mentioned in the minute of Punjab University, Ch. Executive Council dated 26.5.2010. 5. The extract of the record of the proceedings of the selection committee; the letters sent by Prof. S.S. Kushwaha, the Vice-Chancellor of the University confidentially to the expert, on 29.10.2007, and a note on the letter that their consent has been obtained on telephone, have been placed by the University on record. A tabular chart of the presence of the subject experts, UGC observers and the representatives of the Scheduled Caste for the selections conducted by the various selection committees in the University from 9.9.2007 to 18.12.2007, has also been produced. 6. In the meetings of the selection committees held on the dates given as above, only one of the subject expert was present in the case of post of Lecturers; two in the case of Reader and two in the case of Professor. 6. In the meetings of the selection committees held on the dates given as above, only one of the subject expert was present in the case of post of Lecturers; two in the case of Reader and two in the case of Professor. The Act provides for presence of two subject experts in case of Lecturers, and three subject experts in case of selections of Readers and Professors, from out of the list in the same order in which the panel of the names of expert is recommended by the Chancellor of the University. 7. Shri S.S. Kushwaha, the outgoing Vice-Chancellor had by his letter dated 29.10.2007 invited two subject experts in case of Lecturer and three in case of Reader and Professor. He had also obtained consent of subject experts on telephone and had made an endorsement on the copy of the letter sent to them, that they had agreed to participate in the proceedings. On the dates when the interviews were to take place, one subject expert in each category did not come and made himself available to participate in the meeting of selection committee. All the selection committees were thus short of one subject expert. The quorum, however, in accordance with the Act was complete and the recommendation of at least one of the subject experts for the post of Lecturer and two for the posts of Reader and Professor was made in the selections of the petitioners. 8. The Executive Council is the appointing authority. In its meeting dated 23.6.2010 considered the recommendations. The consideration was classified into different categories. All the petitioners fall in the category, in which the Executive Council found that one of the subject expert was not present. 9. The Executive Council made a note of the information made available by Prof. Awadh Ram, the succeeding Vice-Chancellor, and the Chairman of the Executive Council of the University, that in each of the selections one of the subject experts was not present. There is no document which may be accepted as the proof of the consent of the subject expert who did not attend the meeting of the selection committee. The then Vice-Chancellor had only made a note of their consent on telephone on the copies of the letters sent to them. 10. There is no document which may be accepted as the proof of the consent of the subject expert who did not attend the meeting of the selection committee. The then Vice-Chancellor had only made a note of their consent on telephone on the copies of the letters sent to them. 10. The Executive Council found that since one of the subject expert in each of the selection was not present, the selections could not be treated to be valid selections. It also took into notice that the State Government is getting a vigilance enquiry conducted in respect of all the appointments made by the then Vice-Chancellor. The Executive Council does not have any power to reject the recommendations of the selection committee, and thus in view of the loss caused to the students in their studies, an opinion was expressed under Section 31 (8) (a) of the Act, to the Chancellor, to cancel the selections. 11. Shri R.N. Singh submits that in Dr. Mohd. Suhail v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others, (1994) 2 UPLBEC 787, this Court held that Section 66 of the UP State Universities Act has an overriding effect after the selection made by the Selection Committee. Section 66 provides as follows : “66. Proceeding not to be invalidated by vacancies, etc.—No act or proceeding, of any authority or body or committee of the University shall be invalid merely by reason of— (a) any vacancy or defect in the constitution thereof, or (b) some person having taken part in the proceedings who was not entitled to do so, or (c) any defect in the election nomination or appointment of a person acting as a member thereof, or (d) any irregularity in its procedure not affecting the merits of the case.” 12. The Court held that the proceeding of any committee of the University including the selection committee shall not be held invalid merely by reason of any irregularity in the constitution of selection committee or any vacancy and even if there was any irregularity in the constitution of the selection committee because some one participated in the selection who could not have participated the proceeding will not be invalidated. Where the selection committee has been duly constituted, the consideration of merit is to be left to the statutory committee consisting of experts. 13. In Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Where the selection committee has been duly constituted, the consideration of merit is to be left to the statutory committee consisting of experts. 13. In Km. Neelima Misra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others, AIR 1990 SC 1402 , the Supreme Court, after clarifying the difference between purely administrative function, and quasi-judicial function, held that where an administrative order involves civil consequence, it must be made consistently with the rules expressed in the Latin Maxim, ‘audi alteram partem,’. The decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case. The Supreme Court, thereafter in the matter of appointment of teachers where Executive Committees did not agree with the recommendations of the selection committee, held that the power is not quasi-judicial, but administrative in nature, and that with the shift of the approach towards in the administrative action, the duty is cast upon such authorities to act fairly. For fairness it is not necessary that there should be any resolution of the lis, inter-se between the parties. The duty to act judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely different circumstances. The non-adjudicative administrative decision making is now covered under the general rubric of fairness in the administration. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 read as follows : 24. In the light of those considerations, we revert to the central issue, that is with regard to the nature of the Chancellor’s power under Section 31(8)(a). It may be noted that the Chancellor is one of the three authorities in the Statutory Scheme for selecting and appointing the best among the eligible candidates in the academic field. The Chancellor is not an appellate authority in matters of appointment. He is asked to take a decision, because the Executive Council who is the appointing authority has no power to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee and take a decision deviating therefrom. The Chancellor’s decision is called for when the Executive Council disagrees with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. What is referred to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8)(a) of the Act, is therefore, not a dispute between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council on any issue. Nor it is a dispute between two rival candidates on any controversy. The Chancellor’s decision is called for when the Executive Council disagrees with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. What is referred to the Chancellor under Section 31 (8)(a) of the Act, is therefore, not a dispute between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council on any issue. Nor it is a dispute between two rival candidates on any controversy. What is referred to the Chancellor is the recommendation of the Selection Committee with the opinion, if any, recorded thereon by the Executive Council. In fact, even without any opinion of the Executive Council, the matter stands automatically remitted to the Chancellor if the Executive Council delays its decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The proviso to Section 31(8)(a) provides for this contingency. It reads : “Section 31(8)(a) xxxx xxxx Proviso : Provided that if the Executive Council does not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee within a period of four months from the date of the meeting of such Committing, then also the matter shall stand referred to the Chancellor, and his decision shall be final.” 25. The matter thus goes to the Chancellor for decision since the Executive Council could not take a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The Chancellor in the circumstances has to examine whether the recommendation of the Selection Committee should be accepted or not. If any opinion by way of disagreement has been recorded by the Executive Council on that recommendation, the Chancellor has also to consider it. He must take a decision as to who should be appointed. It is indeed a decision with regard to appointment of a particular person or persons in the light of the recommendation and opinion if any, of the two statutory authorities. Such a decision appears to be of an administrative character much the same way as the decision of the Executive Council with regard to appointment. 26. In matters relating to public employment whether by promotion or direct recruitment, only requirement to be complied with is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. There shall be equality of opportunity and no discrimination only on’ ground of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence or any of them. The eligible candidate has a right to have his case considered in accordance with law. There shall be equality of opportunity and no discrimination only on’ ground of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth or residence or any of them. The eligible candidate has a right to have his case considered in accordance with law. In the instant case, that requirement has been complied with by the Selection Committee. There is no further right with the candidates to make representation to the Executive Council and much less to the Chancellor. Reference however, was made to the observation of this Court in Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow, (1976) 3 SCC 585 at p. 592: ( AIR 1976 SC 2428 at p. 2433). While dismissing the writ petition challenging the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the Lucknow University for appointment of a candidate as Professor, it was observed that “the aggrieved candidate has remedy by way of representation to the Executive Council and an application for reference under Section 68 of the Act to the Chancellor”. We have carefully perused the decision and that observation. We find that it is of little assistance to the present case. We are concerned with the scope of Section 31(8)(a) of the Act which was not considered in that case. Apart from that, Section 31 confers no such right to make representation to the Executive Council or to the Chancellor against the recommendation of the Selection Committee. There is no provision in the Section for hearing any candidate or the Executive Council. There is also no provision for receiving evidence. The material in respect of every candidate has already been collected and collated by the Selection Committee. Every material is on the record and the Chancellor has no power to take further evidence. The Chancellor is authorised to take a decision and he must take it on the available records since the Executive Council has not taken a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The decision of the Chancellor in the exercise of this Statutory function does not, in our opinion, expressly or impliedly require the application of the principles of natural justice. See also the observations of K. N. Singh, J. in R.S. Dass v. Union of India, 1986 (Suppl). SCC 617 at p. 633 : ( AIR 1987 SC 593 at Pp. 603-4). 27. See also the observations of K. N. Singh, J. in R.S. Dass v. Union of India, 1986 (Suppl). SCC 617 at p. 633 : ( AIR 1987 SC 593 at Pp. 603-4). 27. It has been argued that the order of the Chancellor becomes final and binding which is one of the features of judicial power. It is true that the conclusiveness of the decision without the need for confirmation or adoption by any other authority is generally regarded as one of the features of judicial power. But it must be added that the order made by a statutory authority even if it is given finality does not thereby acquire judicial quality if no other characteristic of judicial power is present. Power to make orders that are binding and conclusive is not, by itself a decisive factor to hold that the power is judicial. Prof. DeSmith makes a similar point in his book ‘Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (4th Edition p. 82). 28. Taking all these factors into consideration, we would sum up our opinion in this way. The power of the Chancellor under Section 31(8)(a) is purely of administrative character and is not in the nature of judicial or quasi-judicial power. No judicial or quasi judicial duty is imposed on the Chancellor and any reference to judicial duty, seems to be irrelevant in the exercise of his function. The function of the Chancellor is to consider and direct appointment of a candidate on the basis of the relative performance assessed by the Expert Selection Committee and in the light of the opinion, if any, expressed by the Executive Council. His decision nonetheless is a decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Such a power cannot be considered as a quasi judicial power. And we see nothing in that to justify our thinking that it must conform to the principles of natural justice. The contention urged to the contrary is, therefore, unacceptable to us. We also do not agree with the contrary view taken by the High Court in the Full Bench decision in L.N. Mathur case ( AIR 1986 All 273 ) (supra). 29. The Chancellor, however, has to act properly for the purpose for which the power is conferred. He must take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. He must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. 29. The Chancellor, however, has to act properly for the purpose for which the power is conferred. He must take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statutes. He must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. He must not act illegally, irrationally or arbitrarily. Any such illegal, irrational or arbitrary action or decision, whether in the nature of a legislative, administrative or quasi judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. As stated in E.P. Royapa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 348 : ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ) “equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch.” The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 must guide every State action, whether it be legislative, executive, or quasi judicial. See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 at pp. 283-84: ( AIR 1978 SC 597 at P. 624); Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 at pp. 740-41 : ( AIR 1981 SC 487 at Pp. 498-499); Som Raj v. State of Haryana, (1990) 1 JT 286 at p. 290 ( AIR 1990 SC 1176 at P. 1180). 14. We agree with the submission of Shri R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the panel of the experts provided by the Chancellor, under Section 31 (5) (a) of the Act was valid for a period of three years. Whenever a selection is to be held, the Vice-Chancellor has to request for the names of the experts from out of the said panel to be called in order of seriatum. The selection committee can proceed with the selections, only if the quorum of the selection committee is complete. The quorum is half of the members of the selection committee subject to the conditions that at least one expert agrees for the recommendation, in case of lecturer and two in case of readers and professors. Where one of the experts, informed in writing by the Vice-Chancellor, had given his consent, recorded by the Vice-Chancellor on the copy of the letter, could not attend the meeting of the selection committee, the selection could not be treated to be invalid. Where one of the experts, informed in writing by the Vice-Chancellor, had given his consent, recorded by the Vice-Chancellor on the copy of the letter, could not attend the meeting of the selection committee, the selection could not be treated to be invalid. In such case the recommendation of one of the expert in case of post of lecturer and two experts in case of post of Readers and Professors is sufficient for a valid recommendation. If the second expert in case of Lecturer and the third expert in case of Reader and Professor were unable to attend the meeting of the selection committee, the irregularity in the meeting of the selection will not vitiate the selections. 15. In the present case there is sufficient material on record to show that the Vice-Chancellor had requested the Chancellor to make recommendation of the experts from out of the panel of expert which was valid. The office of the Chancellor had provided the list of experts for each subject. The Vice-Chancellor had informed the experts in writing and had also taken care to inform them on telephone. He had recorded their agreement to attend the meeting of the selection committee. One of them in each case, could not come to attend the meeting. The minimum number of experts, to recommend for selection were present in the meeting. 16. The quorum of the selection committee in case of each of the petitioner was complete. In the recommendations the mandatory minimum number of experts for selection i.e. one in case of petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, for the post of Lecturer, and 02 in case of petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 for the post of Readers and Professor, were present and thus the constitution and proceeding of the selection committee were valid. 17. In the present case there is no complaint made by any person regarding the non-availability of the vacancy; the category in which the vacancy falls; the qualifications and eligibility of the petitioner and the constitution of the selection committee. In the circumstances the vigilance enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Establishment under the orders of the State Government, as a fact finding enquiry into some complaints with which the selection of petitioner, has not been co-related, could not be a ground of recording disagreement. In the circumstances the vigilance enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Establishment under the orders of the State Government, as a fact finding enquiry into some complaints with which the selection of petitioner, has not been co-related, could not be a ground of recording disagreement. Learned counsel for the State states that the enquiry reports have been submitted and are under consideration of the State Government but nothing has been brought on record to show that there is any finding in the report, which relates to and may affect petitioner’s selection. 18. The background of the case will demonstrate that the Chancellor of the University for the reasons, which are not recorded by him, did not have any faith in the Vice-Chancellor to act fairly close to completing his term. He was passing repeated orders restraining the Vice-Chancellor to hold and conclude selections, inspite of the directions of the High Court to allow him to conclude the proceedings. The High Court had to intervene on three occasions to allow the selection proceedings to be concluded. If there was any complaint of any irregularities which could have vitiated the selections, the same should have been brought on record by the Chancellor. The circumstances, in which the Executive Council met, under the orders of the Court, to consider the recommendation of the selection committees, would clearly show that the Chancellor did not have confidence on the previous Vice-Chancellor. The reasons for not placing the trust on him have not been brought on record. The anxiety of the Vice-Chancellor to fill up the teaching posts could not be, in the absence of any positive material, misunderstood and co-related with any corrupt motive. 19. Nothing has been brought on record, nor any material, which may have been found or discovered in three years, after the previous Vice-Chancellor completed his term on 31.12.2007, has been brought on record to justify the apprehension of the Chancellor. So far as petitioners’ appointments are concerned, there are no complaint, nor any doubt has been expressed on record to consider the selections to be invalid. 20. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23/28.12.2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in so far as petitioners’ selections are concerned, are set aside. So far as petitioners’ appointments are concerned, there are no complaint, nor any doubt has been expressed on record to consider the selections to be invalid. 20. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23/28.12.2010 passed by the Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, in so far as petitioners’ selections are concerned, are set aside. The Chancellor is requested to pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight weeks from the date a copy of the judgment is produced in his office. —————