LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a challenge to the appointment of a faculty member in a university can be entertained after a significant delay, and whether the experience of a Senior Research Fellow with the WHO can be considered equivalent to teaching experience for the purpose of seniority.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Pooran Chand vs. Chancellor & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 29 January 2021
Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 26
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a university employee challenge the appointment of a colleague after several years, and should research experience be counted as teaching experience for seniority? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving faculty members at King George Medical University. The core issue revolved around a dispute regarding seniority between two faculty members, with one challenging the other’s appointment after a considerable delay. This judgment clarifies the importance of timely challenges to appointments and the criteria for recognizing teaching experience.
The judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice M.R. Shah concurring. The bench was a three-judge bench.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute between Pooran Chand (the appellant) and another faculty member (respondent No. 4) at King George Medical University. The University, established under the King George Medical University Act, 2002, issued an advertisement on 15 March 2005 for various teaching positions. Pooran Chand applied for the post of Assistant Professor, while respondent No. 4 applied for the post of Lecturer.
Both candidates were considered by the same Selection Committee. The Executive Council approved the recommendations on 8 August 2005, appointing Pooran Chand as Assistant Professor and respondent No. 4 as Lecturer. Pooran Chand, who was previously an Assistant Professor at BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, joined his new post on 8 December 2005. Respondent No. 4 joined as Lecturer on 8 August 2005 and was promoted to Assistant Professor on 8 August 2007, after completing three years of service.
Respondent No. 4 then submitted representations to the University and the Chancellor, claiming seniority over Pooran Chand. He argued that his experience as a Senior Research Fellow with the World Health Organization (WHO) should have been considered, which would have made him senior to Pooran Chand. The Chancellor rejected this representation on 8 July 2009. Aggrieved, respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Chancellor’s order and Pooran Chand’s appointment.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15 March 2005 | King George Medical University issues advertisement for teaching positions. |
| 8 August 2005 | Executive Council approves appointments: Pooran Chand as Assistant Professor, respondent No. 4 as Lecturer. |
| 8 August 2005 | Respondent No. 4 joins as Lecturer. |
| 8 December 2005 | Pooran Chand joins as Assistant Professor. |
| 8 August 2007 | Respondent No. 4 is promoted to Assistant Professor. |
| 13 February 2009 | Respondent No. 4 submits a representation to the Chancellor claiming seniority over Pooran Chand. |
| 8 July 2009 | Chancellor rejects respondent No. 4’s representation. |
| 2009 | Respondent No. 4 files a writ petition in the High Court. |
| 12 April 2018 | High Court allows the writ petition, setting aside the Chancellor’s order. |
| 29 January 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 on 12 April 2018. The High Court set aside the Chancellor’s order dated 8 July 2009, directing the University to treat respondent No. 4 as initially appointed to the post of Lecturer. The High Court also stated that no recovery should be made from respondent No. 4 for payments made to him as an Assistant Professor. Aggrieved by this decision, Pooran Chand appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case is governed by the King George Medical University Act, 2002 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2002). Section 42 of the Act pertains to the First Statutes of the University, which states that until the First Statutes are made, the Statutes of Lucknow University, as in force before the appointed date, shall apply, provided they are not inconsistent with the Act. The qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor are outlined in Statute 11.02 B2 of the Lucknow University Statutes, which states:
“11.02 B2. Assistant Professor: MDS or equivalent degree as recognised by the Dental Council of India in the subject concerned with at least three years teaching experience as Lecturer/Chief Resident/Senior Resident/ Demonstrator / Tutor or equivalent after obtaining MDS degree in the subject concerned. Provided that if suitable candidates with requisite teaching experience are not available the selection committee may recommend candidates for appointment in lower grade i.e. Lecturers.”
Section 53 of the Act, 2002, addresses disputes regarding appointments:
“53- If any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be a member of any authority or other body of the University (including any question as to the validity of a Statute, Ordinance or Regulation, not being a Statute or Ordinance made or approved by the State Government or by the Chancellor) is in conformity with this Act or the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final: Provided that no reference under this section shall be made- (a) more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time, (b) by any person other than an authority or officer of the University or a person aggrieved: Provided further that the Chancellor may in exceptional circumstances- (a) act suo motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso, (b) where the matter referred relates to a dispute about the election, and the eligibility of the persons so elected is in doubt, pass such orders of stay as he thinks just and expedient.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Pooran Chand):
- Pooran Chand argued that he had been working as an Assistant Professor at BRD Medical College from 19 July 2003 to 7 December 2005. Prior to this, he was a member of the Provincial Medical Services since 1 September 1992, with over a decade of experience as a Dental Surgeon.
- The Selection Committee considered his service experience and found him eligible for the post of Assistant Professor.
- Respondent No. 4 did not fulfill the qualifications for Assistant Professor at the time of application, having only one year of experience, and therefore rightly applied for the post of Lecturer.
- The appointment of Pooran Chand as Assistant Professor was never challenged by respondent No. 4. The representation to the Chancellor was submitted more than three years after Pooran Chand’s appointment, and only after respondent No. 4 was promoted to Assistant Professor in 2007.
- The High Court erred in entertaining the challenge to Pooran Chand’s appointment, which was made after a significant delay.
- Pooran Chand fulfilled the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor and has been working on the post since his joining.
Respondent’s Arguments (Respondent No. 4):
- Respondent No. 4 argued that Pooran Chand’s experience as a member of the Provincial Medical Services was irrelevant for the post of Assistant Professor.
- Pooran Chand’s experience as an Assistant Professor at BRD Medical College was only two years, four months, and 19 days, which was less than the required three years for eligibility as Assistant Professor.
- Pooran Chand’s appointment as Assistant Professor was void because he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria.
- Respondent No. 4’s experience as a Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should have been considered as teaching experience, making him senior to Pooran Chand.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Assistant Professor | Appellant fulfilled the qualifications for Assistant Professor with prior experience. | Appellant |
| Respondent did not fulfill qualifications for Assistant Professor at the time of application. | Appellant | |
| Appellant did not have the requisite three years teaching experience. | Respondent No. 4 | |
| Challenge to Appointment | Appointment of appellant was never challenged by respondent No. 4. | Appellant |
| Challenge to appellant’s appointment was made after a significant delay. | Appellant | |
| Appointment of appellant was void due to lack of eligibility. | Respondent No. 4 | |
| Seniority Claim | Respondent’s representation to the Chancellor was only to claim seniority over the appellant. | Appellant |
| Respondent’s experience as Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should have been considered for seniority. | Respondent No. 4 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was correct in entertaining the challenge to the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor, which was made after a significant delay.
- Whether the experience of the respondent No. 4 as Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should be considered as teaching experience for the purpose of seniority.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in entertaining the challenge to the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor, which was made after a significant delay. | High Court was incorrect in entertaining the challenge. | The challenge was made after a delay of more than three years, violating the provisions of Section 53 of the Act, 2002. |
| Whether the experience of the respondent No. 4 as Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should be considered as teaching experience for the purpose of seniority. | The Court did not directly address this issue. | The main issue was the delay in challenging the appointment, and the court found the challenge to be time-barred. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following legal provisions and precedents:
- Section 42 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002, which pertains to the First Statutes of the University.
- Section 53 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002, which addresses disputes regarding appointments.
- Statute 11.02 B2 of the Lucknow University Statutes, which provides the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor.
- Nagendra Chandra and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 798, Supreme Court of India.
- Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. K. Brahmanandam and Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 241, Supreme Court of India.
- Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 153, Supreme Court of India.
- State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 602, Supreme Court of India.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 42 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002 | Statute | Provided the framework for applying Lucknow University statutes. |
| Section 53 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002 | Statute | Provided the mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to the Chancellor within a period of three months. |
| Statute 11.02 B2 of the Lucknow University Statutes | Statute | Provided the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor. |
| Nagendra Chandra and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 798 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The case was about appointments made without advertisement, whereas the present case was not. |
| Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. K. Brahmanandam and Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 241 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The case was about appointments made without statutory approval, whereas the present case was not. |
| Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 153 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The case was about a teacher with a degree from an unrecognized institution, whereas the present case was not. |
| State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to highlight the importance of approaching the court within a reasonable time. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant fulfilled the qualifications for Assistant Professor with prior experience. | Appellant | Accepted. The court noted that the Selection Committee found the appellant eligible and he was duly appointed. |
| Respondent did not fulfill qualifications for Assistant Professor at the time of application. | Appellant | Accepted. The court agreed that the respondent applied for the post of Lecturer, indicating he did not meet the criteria for Assistant Professor at that time. |
| Appellant did not have the requisite three years teaching experience. | Respondent No. 4 | Rejected. The court did not delve into the specifics of whether the appellant had the requisite experience, as the challenge was time-barred. |
| Appointment of appellant was never challenged by respondent No. 4. | Appellant | Accepted. The court noted that the respondent did not challenge the appointment initially. |
| Challenge to appellant’s appointment was made after a significant delay. | Appellant | Accepted. The court held that the challenge was made after the limitation period of three months as per Section 53 of the Act, 2002. |
| Appointment of appellant was void due to lack of eligibility. | Respondent No. 4 | Rejected. The court did not find the appointment void, as the challenge was time-barred. |
| Respondent’s representation to the Chancellor was only to claim seniority over the appellant. | Appellant | Accepted. The court noted that the respondent’s main grievance was about seniority. |
| Respondent’s experience as Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should have been considered for seniority. | Respondent No. 4 | Not addressed. The court did not delve into the merits of this claim, as the challenge was time-barred. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Section 42 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002:* The Court used this section to establish the applicability of the Lucknow University Statutes to King George Medical University.
- Section 53 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002:* The Court relied on this section to emphasize the importance of raising disputes about appointments within three months.
- Statute 11.02 B2 of the Lucknow University Statutes:* The Court acknowledged this statute as the relevant provision for the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor.
- Nagendra Chandra and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 798:* The Court distinguished this case, noting that it pertained to appointments made without advertisement, which was not the situation in the present case.
- Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. K. Brahmanandam and Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 241:* The Court distinguished this case, noting that it pertained to appointments made without statutory approval, which was not the situation in the present case.
- Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 153:* The Court distinguished this case, noting that it pertained to a teacher with a degree from an unrecognized institution, which was not the situation in the present case.
- State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 602:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize that challenges to appointments must be made within a reasonable time.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspect of the case, specifically the delay in challenging the appointment of the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed by the statute for raising disputes related to appointments. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure stability and finality in appointments within the University. The Court also noted that the respondent’s primary concern was establishing seniority, rather than challenging the appointment itself.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Compliance (Timeliness of Challenge) | 60% |
| Stability in Appointments | 25% |
| Focus on Seniority Claim | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Challenge to Appointment of Appellant
Was the challenge made within three months as per Section 53 of the Act, 2002?
No, the challenge was made after more than three years.
Therefore, the challenge is time-barred.
High Court erred in entertaining the challenge.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that disputes regarding appointments should be raised promptly to ensure the smooth functioning of the University. The Court rejected the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court should not have entertained the challenge to the appointment of the appellant, as it was made after a significant delay. The Court also stated that the respondent’s main grievance was about seniority, not the appointment itself.
The Court noted that the respondent had not challenged the appointment of the appellant within the stipulated time frame and had only raised the issue after being promoted to Assistant Professor. The Court found that the Chancellor’s order rejecting the respondent’s representation was valid and did not warrant interference by the High Court.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
“From the facts, which have been brought on record, it is clear that the reference to the Chancellor was made by respondent No.4 only on 13.02.2009, i.e., subsequent to he was promoted as Assistant Professor.”
“We, thus, are of the view that the appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor, which is approved on 08.08.2005 was not challenged or questioned by respondent No.4 in accordance with provisions of the Act, 2002.”
“Any challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained as we have already held that 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”
Key Takeaways
- Timely Challenges: Challenges to appointments in universities must be made within the time frame specified by the relevant statute (in this case, three months as per Section 53 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002).
- Seniority Disputes: Seniority claims should not be used as a means to challenge appointments that have become final due to the passage of time.
- Procedural Compliance: Courts must adhere to procedural rules and timelines when considering challenges to appointments.
- Stability in Appointments: The judgment emphasizes the need for stability and finality in appointments within universities to ensure their smooth functioning.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 12 April 2018 and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that challenges to appointments in universities must be made within the time frame specified by the relevant statute. The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the principle that procedural timelines must be strictly adhered to when challenging appointments. This decision emphasizes the need for stability and finality in appointments within universities and clarifies that seniority claims cannot be used to challenge appointments after a significant delay. The court did not delve into the merits of whether the experience of the respondent No. 4 as Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should be considered as teaching experience for the purpose of seniority.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Pooran Chand vs. Chancellor & Ors. underscores the importance of timely challenges to appointments in universities. The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining a challenge to the appointment of the appellant after a significant delay. The decision reinforces the need for procedural compliance and stability in university appointments. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the experience of the respondent No. 4 as Senior Research Fellow with the WHO should be considered as teaching experience for the purpose of seniority.
Category:
- Service Law
- Appointment
- Seniority
- Time Limit
- King George Medical University Act, 2002
- Section 53, King George Medical University Act, 2002
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Pooran Chand vs. Chancellor case?
A: The main issue was whether a challenge to the appointment of a faculty member in a university could be entertained after a significant delay, and whether research experience could be considered equivalent to teaching experience for seniority.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court held that the challenge to the appointment was time-barred because it was made after the limitation period of three months as per Section 53 of the King George Medical University Act, 2002. The Court did not address the issue of whether research experience was equivalent to teaching experience.
Q: What is the significance of the three-month time limit?
A: The three-month time limit, as per Section 53 of the Act, 2002, is crucial for ensuring stability in university appointments. It requires any disputes about appointments to be raised promptly to allow for timely resolution.
Q: Can a university employee challenge a colleague’s appointment after several years?
A: No, according to the Supreme Court’s judgment, challenges to appointments must be made within the time frame specified by the relevant statute, which in this case was three months.
Q: What should I do if I have a dispute about an appointment in a university?
A: You should raise your concerns promptly, within the time limit specified by the relevant statute. Failure to do so may result in your challenge being time-barred.
Q: What are the implications of this judgment for university employees?
A: The judgment emphasizes the need for university employees to be aware of the time limits for challenging appointments. It also highlights that seniority claims should not be used as a means to challenge appointments that have become final due to the passage of time.