Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 665 (RAJ)

Raj Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-26

ALOK SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Mr. Vigyan Shah and Mr. Nitin Jain appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.1.2017, the petitioners both in the unreserved category and reserved category, were selected by a duly constituted selection committee for the post of Deputy Registrar. The petitioners selection was preceded by a shortlisting of applicants for the post through written examination and subsequent approval by the Syndicate, as provided for in the Ordinance 359(E) of University of Rajasthan Ordinances. Office order dated 7.8.2018 appointing the petitioners as probation trainee Deputy Registrars was issued. Yet the petitioners were not allowed to join. Instead vide order dated 16.8.2018, appointment orders of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars were kept in abeyance purportedly in view of the communication dated 9.8.2018 - wholly illegal and arbitrary - emanating from the Chancellor of the University. 2. Counsel submitted that appointment of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars with the respondent University is governed by the Rajasthan Universities Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 (hereafter the Act of 1974). Clause-(iv) of Section 2(1) of the Act of 1974 defines the "Officer" inter-alia to mean the Registrar, the Deputy Registrar, the Asstt. Registrar, the Librarian of a University including any other officer by whatever name designated and declared by the Statutes to be an officer of the University. Counsel submitted that Section 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974 generally deal with the Constitution of Selection Committee for appointment of officers, and the Procedure of Selection Committee respectively. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1974 provides that the Selection Committee make its recommendations to the Syndicate and only in the event of the Syndicate disapproving the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor of the University would have the power to take a view one way or the other, on the selections of officers by the Selection Committee. 3. Counsel submitted that in the instant cases, the Syndicate in its meeting of 4.8.2018 having affirmed the selections of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars by the Selection Committee, the Chancellor of the University had no jurisdiction at all to exercise any power qua the selections made. 3. Counsel submitted that in the instant cases, the Syndicate in its meeting of 4.8.2018 having affirmed the selections of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars by the Selection Committee, the Chancellor of the University had no jurisdiction at all to exercise any power qua the selections made. It was further submitted that even in terms of Section 10 of the University of Rajasthan Act 1946 which comprehensively deals with the power of the Chancellor of the University, no such power to interfere with the selections made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Syndicate is decipherable. This counsel submitted is without prejudice to the legal submission that the Act of 1946 on the one hand being a general Act with regard to the University of Rajasthans affairs and the Act of 1974 on the other being a special Act dealing specifically with selection and appointment of the officers of University, the Chancellor would have no power under the said Act of 1946 to interfere with the selections made by the Selection Committee and approved by the Syndicate. In support of their contentions, counsel have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neelima Misra Versus Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors. (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 746 . 4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr Counsel with Mr. Rachit Sharma appearing for the respondent-University of Rajasthan at the outset sought to clarify that he represents only the Registrar of the University of Rajasthan and not its Chancellor. The argument however cannot be countenanced by the Court. The respondent in the petition is University of Rajasthan. It cannot be visualized that it can be represented only in part when both the Registrar and the Chancellor have not been impleaded in their individual capacity but through the University as its officers / authority. The Chancellor has not been impleaded in his individual / personal capacity. The contention of Mr. A.K. Sharma as to his not representing the Chancellor is therefore over-ruled in the facts obtaining in the instant petitions. 5. On the merits of the matter, Mr. A.K. Sharma submitted that appointment of the petitioners vide order dated 7.8.2018 is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18655/2018 (Vishnu Kumar Sharma Versus University of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected petitions. 5. On the merits of the matter, Mr. A.K. Sharma submitted that appointment of the petitioners vide order dated 7.8.2018 is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18655/2018 (Vishnu Kumar Sharma Versus University of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected petitions. He further submitted that the Chancellor being the supreme authority under the University of Rajasthan Act, the Registrar had no escape but to act in terms of his communication dated 9.8.2018 keeping the appointment of the petitioners as Deputy Registrars in abeyance. Mr. A.K. Sharma has pointed out that the Chancellor vide letter dated 7.8.2018 had required certain information with regard to appointments of the Deputy Registrars under the order dated 7.8.2018. In response thereto, vide letter dated 13.8.2018 the requisite information has been furnished. No further communication on the issue has been received from the Chancellor. 6. Reliance by counsel for the petitioners on the case of Neelima Misra Versus Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors. (supra) only tangentially attracts but does not roundedly address the issue in these petitions. In Neelima Misra Versus Harinder Kaur Paintal & Ors. (supra) the issue before the Apex Court was as to the nature of the power over appointment of officers of the University exercised by the Chancellor under Section 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereafter the Act of 1973). 7. Section 31(8)(a) of the Act of 1973 reads as under: "In the case of appointment of a teacher of the University, if the Executive Council does not agree with the recommendation made by the Selection Committee, the Executive Council shall refer the matter to the Chancellor alongwith the reasons of such disagreement, and his decision shall be final." 8. The Apex Court therein held that the Chancellors power was administrative and not quasi judicial in nature. In the aforesaid case, the factual background was a disagreement between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council (Syndicates equivalent) on the issue of appointments. In the instant case there is concurrence between the selection committee and the Syndicate over the appointment of petitioners as Deputy Registrars. The issue in the instant petitions thus is whether selection committee and the Syndicate concur on an appointment, does the Chancellor have any jurisdiction to interfere therewith? 9. In the instant case there is concurrence between the selection committee and the Syndicate over the appointment of petitioners as Deputy Registrars. The issue in the instant petitions thus is whether selection committee and the Syndicate concur on an appointment, does the Chancellor have any jurisdiction to interfere therewith? 9. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have been able to make out a case in their favour based on Section 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974, wherefrom it is apparent that the Chancellor has no jurisdiction to interfere with the appointment of officers under the Act of 1974 where the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee have been approved by the Syndicate, as in the instant case. Nor does the Chancellor by resort to Section 10 of the Act of 1946 has any jurisdiction to direct that selections of officers of University made by duly constituted Committee and approved by the Syndicate be kept in abeyance. Nothing in Section 10 of the Act of 1946 confers such power to issue interim directions. 10. In the circumstances, I would be inclined to set-aside the impugned orders dated 16.8.2018 and 20.8.2018. Resultantly the petitioners be allowed to join the post of Deputy Registrar pursuant to their appointment orders dated 7.8.2018. It is however made clear that the petitioners appointment / joining on the post of Deputy Registrar will be subject to the outcome of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18655/2018 (Vishnu Kumar Sharma Versus University of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected matters pending before this Court. 11. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. 12. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each of the two files.