Anurag Pandey vs Union Of India And 5 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 3232 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
RESERVED
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15250 of 2018
 

 
Petitioner :- Anurag Pandey
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Gautam Baghel,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Rahul Agarwal,Sankalp Narain
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gautam Baghel,Neeraj Tripathi,Rahul Agarwal,Tapeshwari Prasad
 

 
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble B.Amit Sthalekar, J)

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sankalp Narain for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor discarding the selection made by the Selection Committee on 3.5.2018 in respect of the post of Assistant Professor in Philosophy, as approved by the Governing Body in its meeting held on 8.5.2018 and communicated by the Joint Registrar vide letter dated 15.6.2018. The prayer further is that the respondents be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) in the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College, Allahabad.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an Advertisement No. JTGDC/01/2017 was issued by the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College, a constituent College of the University of Allahabad for filling up various post of Teachers including the post in question i.e. one post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) in the open category. The petitioner submitted his application against the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) and he was called for interview and after interview a recommendation was made for his appointment by the Selection Committee on 3.5.2018 which was then placed before the Governing Body in its meeting held on 8.5.2018. It is stated that the advertisement was in respect of large number of posts, Philosophy being one of them and the recommendations were made by the various Selection Committee and they were all placed before the Governing Body for consideration. The Governing Body approved all the recommendations including that of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy).

4. Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Ordinance XXXVIII of the Ordinances of the University made under sub section (2) of Section 29 of the University of Allahabad Act, 2005, which deals with selection and appointment of Teachers (including Principals) in the constituent Colleges. He has also referred to clause 3(c) which speaks of constitution of the Selection Committee and provides that :

(i) there shall be a Chairperson of the Governing Body, or one of the members of the Governing Body nominated by him, not being a nominee of the Vice Chancellor on the Governing Body or a person in the service of the College (Chairperson);

(ii) one of the nominees of the Vice-Chancellor on the Governing Body, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor;

(iii) one expert of the subject concerned from amongst the Professors or Readers of the University, nominated by the Vice-Chancellor;

(iv) two experts of the subject concerned, not being members of any authority of the University, or persons in the service of the University or any institution maintained by it or admitted to its privileges, or otherwise connected with any College, nominated by the Governing Body from such panel of six names as has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

5. The Second proviso to sub clause (c) of Clause 3 further lays down that four members of the Selection Committee, including at least two experts under serial numbers (iii) and (iv), must be present to form the Quorum for a meeting thereof.

6. Learned senior counsel next referred to sub clause (h) of Clause 3, which reads as under:

"(h) Where the Governing Body, upon considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the post of Principal or other teacher-

(i) agrees with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the person recommended by the Selection Committee shall be appointed as Principal or other teacher, as the case may be; or

(ii) does not agree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Governing Body shall refer the matter to the Vice-Chancellor, along with the reasons for such disagreement, and the Vice-Chancellor may-

(1) remit the matter to the Governing Body for reconsideration in accordance with his observations on such reasons:

(2) direct that another Selection Committee be constituted to consider the cases of the same candidates as were considered by the original Selection Committee; or

(3) direct that the post be re-advertised."

6. Referring to sub clause (ii) of Clause (h), Sri G.K. Singh submitted that the Governing Body shall refer a matter to the Vice-Chancellor only if it disagrees with the recommendation of the Selection Committee alongwith the reason for its disagreement and then the Vice-Chancellor may adopt any of the three courses. Firstly, remit the matter to the Governing Body for reconsideration in accordance with his observations on such reasons; secondly, direct that another selection committee be constituted to consider the cases of the same candidates as were considered by the original Selection Committee or direct that the post be re-advertised. His submission, therefore, was that in the present case the Governing Body never disagreed with the findings of the Selection Committee.

7. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that a duly constituted Selection Committee met on 3.5.2018 and the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and was interviewed alongwith other candidates and, thereafter, the Selection Committee made recommendations which was placed before the Governing Body in its meeting held on 8.5.2018. The Governing Body approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee in which the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Assistant Professor (Philosophy), as was informed to the petitioner vide RTI reply dated 20.7.2018, Annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit, in response to his RTI application dated 9.7.2018. The submission, therefore, is that when there was absolutely no disagreement between the recommendation of the Governing Body and of the Selection Committee, there was no requirement for the Governing Body to place the matter before the Vice-Chancellor. His submission is that actually one Prof. A.P. Dube, an external subject expert, could not attend the meeting of the Selection Committee on the ground that his reservations were not confirmed and, therefore, he submitted a complaint in this regard on 14.5.2018, Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit of the University dated 23.7.2018. On this complaint the Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University passed an order on 22.5.2018, Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit dated 23.7.2018, appointing a one man Committee of Professor Jagdamba Singh to enquire into the matter and submit his report. It is stated that Prof. Jagdamba Singh submitted his report on 6.6.2018, page 28 - 30 of the counter affidavit dated 23.7.2018, stating that out of three subject experts only one subject expert attended the meeting of the Selection Committee. Prof. Rishikant Pandey, who was nominated by the Vice Chancellor participated in the Selection Committee as subject expert which was in violation of the Vice-Chancellor's order dated 12.3.2018. Prof. A.P. Dube, the external subject expert could not attend the meeting and Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) who was nominee of the Vice-Chancellor/subject expert could not attend the Selection Committee meeting held on 3.5.2018 and, therefore, the recommendations of the Selection Committee for appointment of one Assistant Professor (Philosophy) in the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College, Allahabad cannot be treated as valid because the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and, therefore he recommended that a fresh Selection Committee be convened. This recommendation of the one man Committee was accepted by the Allahabad University vide order dated 10/14.6.2018, Annexure-6 to the counter affidavit dated 23.7.2018, and a direction was issued to the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College to convene a fresh Selection Committee and appropriate recommendations be procured for appointment to the one post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) in the College and another order of similar nature was issued to the Principal of the College on 15.6.2018, Annexure-7 to the counter affidavit dated 23.7.2018, informing that the Vice-Chancellor has not accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and that a fresh Selection Committee with new external subject expert and new Vice-Chancellor's nominee be convened for appointment on the one post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy).

8. At this stage it would be necessary to refer to the constitution of the Selection Committee to show as to who were the members of the Selection Committee in the meeting held on 3.5.2018 :

1. Dr. Milan Mukherjee, Chairman

2. Prof. A.P. Dube, Member, Department of Philosophy, H.S.G. University, Sagar, M.P., Subject Expert

3. Prof. S.C. Mishra, Member, L.N. Mithila University, Darbbanga, Bihar, Subject Expert

4. Prof. D. N. Dwivedi (Retd.), Member, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, Nominee of VC/Subject Expert

5. Prof. Rishikant Pandey, Member, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, Nominee of VC

6. Dr. Kamala Devi, Member, Principal, Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College, Allahabad

7. Dr. Nilima Misra, Member, Associate Professor and Head, Dept. of Philosophy, Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College, Allahabad

8. Prof. Chanda Devi, Representative, SC/ST, Dept. of Hindi, University of Allahabad, Allahabad

9. The members of the Selection Committee who were present in the meeting of 3.5.2018 are as follows:

1. Dr. Milan Mukherjee, Chairman

2. Prof. S.C. Mishra, Member, Subject Expert

3. Prof. Rishikant Pandey, Member, Nominee of VC

4. Dr. Kamala Devi, Member

5. Dr. Nilima Misra, Member

6. Prof. Chanda Devi, Representative, SC/ST

10. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the composition of the Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor (Philosophy) showed that there were two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor (i) Prof. D.N. Dwivedi and (ii) Prof. Rishikant Pandey and two subject experts showing the names of (i) Prof. A.P. Dube and (ii) Prof. S.C. Mishra.

11. Learned Senior Counsel referring to Annexure-2 of the counter affidavit filed by the University dated 23.7.2018 which is a copy of nominations/recommendations made by the Vice Chancellor dated 12.03.2018, submitted that both Prof. D.N. Dwivedi and Prof. Rishi Kant Pandey were shown as nominees of the Vice-Chancellor but against their names it was nowhere mentioned as to who would be the subject expert. Shri G.K. Singh further referred to Annexure-3 of the counter affidavit, which is the quorum of the Selection Committee showing the members present and submitted that Prof. Rishi Kant Pandey, Head of the Department of Philosophy, University of Allahabad was shown as nominee of the Vice-Chancellor/subject expert. Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.), Department of Philosophy, University of Allahabad who was the other nominee of the Vice-Chancellor was absent in the meeting. The other subject expert Prof. A.P. Dube of the H.S.G. University, Sagar, M.P., subject expert did not attend the meeting. He further submitted that one Prof. S.C. Mishra of L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, Bihar was present in the meeting and he was also shown as subject expert.

12. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that as per requirement of Clause 3, sub clause (c) (iii) one of the nominees of the Vice-Chancellor being an expert of the subject concerned from amongst Professors or Readers of the University and in terms of sub clause (c) (iv) out of the two experts of the subject concerned, not being members of any authority of the University or persons in the service of the University or any institution maintained by it or admitted to its privileges, or otherwise connected with any College, nominated by the Governing Body from such panel of six names as has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor must be present to form the Quorum of the meeting. One subject expert nominated by the Vice Chancellor, namely Prof. Rishikant Pandey was present and Prof. S.C. Mishra of L.N. Mithila University, Bihar who was not a member of any authority of the University or in the service of any University or any College maintained by the University was also present and, therefore, the Quorum was complete and there was absolutely no error in the Quorum of the Selection Committee that met on 03.5.2018.

13. Per contra, Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the Allahabad University submitted that Ordinance XXXVIII of the Ordinances of Allahabad University on which reliance was placed by the petitioner is no longer applicable as the same has been superseded by the University Grant Commission Regulations 2010 known as 'UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2010' published on 28.6.2010, which fact was not disputed by Sri G.K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rahul Agarwal, submitted that paragraph 5.1.4 of the Regulations lays down the composition of the Selection Committee, which reads as under:

"5.1.4 Assistant Professor in Colleges including Private Colleges:

(a) The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges including Private Colleges shall have the following composition:

1. Chairperson of the Governing Body of the college or his/her nominee from among the members of the Governing body to be the Chairperson of the Selection Committee.

2. The Principal of the College.

3. Head of the Department of the concerned subject in the College.

4. Two nominees of the Vice Chancellor or Acting Vice Chancellor of the affiliating university of whom one should be a subject expert. In case of colleges notified/declared as minority educational institutions, two nominees of the Chairperson of the college from out of a panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice Chancellor or Acting Vice Chancellor of the affiliating university from the list of experts suggested by the relevant statutory body of the college, of whom one should be a subject expert.

5. Two subject-experts not connected with the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of the governing body of the college out of a panel of five names recommended by the Vice Chancellor or Acting Vice Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned. In case of colleges notified/declared as minority educational Institutions, two subject experts not connected with the University to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Governing Body of the College out of the panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice Chancellor or Acting Vice Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the College.

6. An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/ Women/Differently-abled categories, if any of the candidates representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor or Acting Vice Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category.

(b) To constitute the quorum for the meeting, five of which at least two must be from out of the three subject-experts shall be present.

(c) For all levels of teaching positions in Government colleges, the State Public Services Commissions/Teacher Recruitment Boards must invite three subject experts for which the concerned University, be involved in the selection process by the State PSC.

(d) For all levels of teaching positions in Constituent college(s) of a university, the selection committee norms shall be similar to that of the posts of departments of the university."

14. Sub para (4) of Clause (a) of Regulation 5.1.4 provides that there shall be two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor or acting Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating University of whom one should be a subject expert. Para (5) of Clause (a) provides that there shall be two subject experts not connected with the College to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Governing Body of the College.

15. Para (b) of Regulations 5.1.4 lays down the Quorum for the meeting and states that the Quorum shall consist of five members of which at least two must be from out of the three subject experts. Referring to the composition of the Selection Committee dated 12.3.2018, Annexure-2 and 3 of the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the University submitted that Prof. Rishikant Pandey shown as a nominee of the Vice-Chancellor/subject expert was actually not a subject expert though he was Head of the Department of Philosophy in the University of Allahabad and Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) alone was the subject expert. To buttress his contention he referred to a letter of the University dated 9.3.2018, Annexure-1 to his counter affidavit and submitted that out of the two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor, the person shown at Sl. No. 1 was always the subject expert in every subject whether it was Ancient History, Economics, Education, Geography, etc. and therefore, even though in the composition of the Selection Committee dated 12.3.2018 issued by the University for the subject of Philosophy, though under the heading of "Nominee of the Vice-Chancellor" it was not indicated as to who would be the subject expert but because Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) was shown at Sl. No. 1, therefore, he would be deemed to be the subject expert and not Prof. Rishikant Pandey.

16. The learned counsel has taken us through the composition of the Selection Committees for various other subjects under the same selection advertisement and has tried to impress upon us that in all those cases in the Selection Committees under the heading of "Nomination of Vice-Chancellor" the person mentioned in the first place was the subject expert and not the person placed in the second place and, therefore, in the subject of Philosophy also even though under the heading of "Nominee of Vice-Chancellor", subject expert was not indicated but Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) would be deemed to be the subject expert and because he was not present in the meeting, therefore, it cannot be said that the Quorum was complete and, therefore, any recommendation made by such a Selection Committee was invalid.

17. Sri Rahul Agarwal in his counter affidavit dated 6.8.2018 referred to the subject of Education and by way of illustration pointed out that in the letter of 9.3.2018 of the University, Prof. P.K. Sahu was shown as 'Subject Expert' at Sl.No. 1 and Prof. Dhananjai Yadav was shown as 'Vice Chancellor Nominee' but in the letter of 12.03.2018 Prof. Dhananjai Yadav's name was at Sl.No. 1 and Prof. P.K. Sahu's name was at Sl.No. 2 and in the meeting of 30.04.2018, Prof. Dhananjai Yadav was shown as 'Nominee of Vice Chancellor/Subject Expert' whereas Prof. P.K. Sahu was simply shown as 'Nominee of Vice Chancellor'.

18. The learned counsel stated that status of a member of the Selection Committee cannot be determined on the basis of the attendance of members, but on which of the members has been nominated in which category. A question would, therefore, arise that whether the letter dated 9.3.2018 of the Vice Chancellor was communicated to the College. In case it was, then the College would have noticed the discrepancy in the constitution of the Selection Committee by the Vice Chancellor in his letter of 12.3.2018 pertaining to the subject of education. The College would also have noticed that in the subject of Philosophy who was nominated by the Vice Chancellor as 'Subject Expert' and who as the 'other nominee'.

19. We put a simple question to the learned counsel for the parties as to what was the accepted practice in the past selections and what were the Rules or Guidelines in this regard where the Vice-Chancellor fails to mention the subject expert then who would be the subject expert?

20. Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submitted that this is the first selection which is being held ever since the University became a Central University in 2005 and, therefore, there is no precedence.

21. Sri Rahul Agarwal also admitted this fact that this is the first selection which is being held after the University became a Central University in 2005 and, therefore, there is no precedence and no selection has been held in the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College or any other College prior to this selection of 2018 in the various subjects including the subject of Philosophy. Sri Rahul Agarwal, however, submitted that on 9.3.2018, the subject experts had been determined by the University and that Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) has been marked as the subject expert whereas Prof. Rishikant Pandey was simply shown as Vice-Chancellor's nominee. The letter dated 9.3.2018 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit and shows against the name of Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) in the subject of Philosophy as Subject Expert. This letter is stated to be addressed to the Principal of the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College and contains the names of the panel of experts for different subjects which also shows the endorsement that it has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University on 9.3.2018 itself.

22. We put a specific question to the learned counsel for the University, whether this letter of 9.3.2018 had been communicated to the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College and we asked him to file a supplementary counter affidavit in this regard, the reason being that Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College categorically denied having received any such letter dated 9.3.2018. In para 18 (ii) of the counter affidavit of the College-respondents no. 4 and 5, it has been stated that the chart dated 9.3.2018 is an internal document of the office of Vice-Chancellor and has not been communicated to the respondent-College and only the final nominations made by the Vice-Chancellor on 12.3.2018 were communicated to the College. Para 18(ii) of the counter affidavit of the College reads as under:-

"18(ii) That from the Perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent university it transpires that the stand of the university is that professor D.N. Dwivedi (Retired Professor, Department of Philosophy) was nominated as the subject expert in keeping with practice/convention while Professor Rishi Kant Pandey has been nominated as the other nominee of Vice Chancellor. However, this chart dated 9.3.2018 as mentioned in paragraph No. 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent university, is an internal document of the office of Vice Chancellor and has not been communicated to the respondent College, rather as accepted by the respondent university in paragraph no. 11 of its counter affidavit, the final nominations were made by the Vice Chancellor on 12.3.2018 which were communicated to the college."

23. In response to our queries, Sri Rahul Agarwal filed a second supplementary counter affidavit dated 16.8.2018, sworn by one Sri Sunil Yadav, Assistant Registrar attached to the office of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad and in para 5 thereof, it was stated that according to his "memory" the chart dated 9.3.2018 was also included in the package handed over to the Principal, Jagat Taran Girls' Degree College, Allahabad. Para 5 of this affidavit reads as under:-

"5. That so far as the memory of the deponent serves him, the chart dated 09.03.2018 was also included in the package handed over to the Principal, Jagat Taran Girls Degree College, Allahabad."

24. There is nothing definitive on record to show whether this chart of 9.3.2018 was actually communicated to the College in question. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances we cannot but presume that the chart dated 9.3.2018 was not communicated to the College. The chart dated 12.03.2018 with regard to all the subjects including Philosophy was communicated to the College and this fact is not disputed but so far as the subject Philosophy is concerned, there is no mention of subject expert against the names of the two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.) and Prof. Rishikant Pandey. No Rule or Regulation or Circular or Notification has been shown to us to demonstrate that the person whose name is mentioned at Sl. No. 1 shall always be a subject expert in the absence of a specific mention to that effect by the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, in our opinion, we do not find any illegality in the functioning of Prof. Rishikant Pandey as Subject Expert in the selection meeting held on 03.05.2018 for the subject of Philosophy.

25. Sri Rahul Agarwal next submitted that the Quorum was itself defective as Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.), Subject Expert did not attend the meeting, Prof. A.P. Dube, the External Subject Expert did not attend the meeting and Prof. Rishikant Pandey, Head of Department of Philosophy, Allahabad University, who was the nominee of the Vice-Chancellor was not the Subject Expert, therefore, there was absolutely no Subject Expert except Prof. S.C. Mishra of the L.N. Mithila University, Bihar, who was present in the meeting among other members. Sri Agarwal referred to Clause (b) of the Regulation 5.1.4 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and submitted that to constitute the Quorum for the meeting, five of which at least two must be from out of the three subject-experts must be present. He, therefore, submitted that since Prof. Rishikant Pandey was not the subject expert and Prof. A.P. Dube of the H.S.G. University, M.P. did not attend, Prof. D.N. Dwivedi (Retd.), the nominated subject expert did not attend, there was only one subject expert, namely, Prof. S.C. Mishra of L.N. Mithila University, Bihar and therefore, the Quorum was not complete. He referred to Clause (5) of Regulation 5.1.4 to submit that the Selection Committee must comprise of two subject experts not connected with the College out of the panel of five names recommended by the Vice-Chancellor.

26. In the present case, we have already held that there was no illegality in Prof. Rishikant Pandey, Head of Department of Philosophy, University of Allahabad functioning as the subject expert and admittedly he was a nominee of the Vice-Chancellor. Moreover, Prof. S.C. Mishra from L.N. Mithila University, Bihar was also a subject expert as 'external subject expert not connected with the College' and therefore, since two subject experts were already present to constitute the quorum, we have no hesitation in holding that the quorum was complete and there was no illegality in the recommendation made by that Selection Committee for appointing the petitioner. In the counter affidavit of the college it has been admitted in paragraph 9 that in the interview which was held on 3rd May, 2018, the petitioner was found most suitable candidate and the Selection Committee recommended the petitioner's name for appointment of Assistant Professor, Philosophy.

27. Coming to the impugned decision of the Vice-Chancellor discarding the recommendation of the Selection Committee, we find that a one man Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor on the complaint of Prof. A.P. Dube who could not attend the meeting because his train reservations had not been confirmed. The one man enquiry Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor was only required to enquire into that aspect of the matter relating to the complaint of Prof. A.P. Dube and nothing further. In our opinion, Prof. Jagdamba Singh while inquiring into the matter exceeded his jurisdiction by entering into the question of validity of the Selection Committee itself which was not the matter referred to him and further went on to hold that the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of Assistant Professor in Philosophy cannot be treated as valid because the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and this report of the one man Committee dated 6.6.2018 was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor and, thereafter, a letter was issued by the Joint Registrar of the University to the governing body of the College to convene a fresh Selection Committee.

28. We find that the Vice-Chancellor while accepting the report of the one man Committee did not address himself to the subject matter of reference to the Committee and after the report was submitted he did not apply his mind to the question as to whether in the absence of Prof. A.P. Dube, the Quorum was complete or not. Since, we have already held that the Quorum was complete and that the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the subject of Philosophy in its meeting held on 3.5.2018 was absolutely legal and valid and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, we set aside the decision of the Vice-Chancellor discarding the recommendations of the Selection Committee dated 3.5.2018 and we direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law in terms of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee of the College in its meeting held on 3.5.2018 forthwith.

29. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 12th October, 2018

o.k./Kirti