Supreme Court settles the criteria for appointment of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’: Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 238 (24 March 2022)

Supreme Court Resolves Lecturer Appointment Dispute in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University

Date of the Judgment: 24 March 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 238
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Can a University deny appointment to a candidate recommended by the Selection Committee, especially when the statutes do not prescribe specific qualifications for the post? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the University to regularize his services, emphasizing that the Academic Council’s opinion on qualifications should be considered final. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with Justice V. Ramasubramanian authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the appointment of a Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ at the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University. The State of U.P. sanctioned a post for Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ in the Department of Sanskrit on 22 October 1996. Initially, Shri Jai Prakash Pandey was appointed to this post, but his regularization was overturned by the High Court on 19 August 2006. Following this, the University engaged the appellant, Dinesh Chandra Shukla, as a Guest Lecturer, paying him Rs. 250 per lecture, up to a maximum of Rs. 5,000 per month.

On 16 October 2006, the Head of the Department of Sanskrit proposed filling the post on a regular basis, which the Vice-Chancellor approved on 18 October 2006. The University then issued Advertisement No. 2 of 2006, inviting applications for various posts, including the Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. The selection process faced hurdles due to a dispute between the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor, but the High Court intervened, allowing the Selection Committees to proceed. The Selection Committee recommended the appellant for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. However, the Executive Council disagreed, stating that the Vice-Chancellor had failed to request the Chancellor to nominate subject experts for the Selection Committee.

The Chancellor then annulled the recommendation on 23/28 December 2010. The appellant challenged this order, and the High Court remanded the matter back to the Chancellor on 2 December 2011, noting that there were no experts in ‘Karm Kand’ as no University offered a postgraduate degree in the subject. After remand, the Chancellor again rejected the appellant’s appointment on 24 August 2012, stating that ‘Karm Kand’ is different from Sanskrit. The High Court upheld this decision on 14 May 2015, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Date	Event
22 October 1996	State of U.P. sanctioned one post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ in the Department of Sanskrit.
19 August 2006	High Court set aside the regularization of Shri Jai Prakash Pandey’s services.
2006	Appellant, Dinesh Chandra Shukla, engaged as Guest Lecturer.
16 October 2006	Head of the Department of Sanskrit proposed filling the post on a regular basis.
18 October 2006	Vice-Chancellor approved the proposal to fill the post on a regular basis.
2006	University issued Advertisement No. 2 of 2006, inviting applications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.
04 October 2007	High Court clarified that statutory functions of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be put on hold by oral orders of the Chancellor.
24 December 2007	Executive Council accepted some of the recommendations of the Selection Committees.
23/28 December 2010	Chancellor annulled the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for the appointment of the appellant.
02 December 2011	High Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Chancellor.
24 August 2012	Chancellor rejected the recommendation of the Selection Committee after remand.
22 August 2013	Academic Council of the University held a meeting regarding the qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.
14 May 2015	Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
14 September 2015	Supreme Court passed an interim order of status quo.
24 March 2022	Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the University to regularize the services of the appellant.

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially challenged the Chancellor’s order dated 23/28 December 2010, which annulled the Selection Committee’s recommendation for his appointment, by filing a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 6389 of 2011) before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 2 December 2011, and remanded the matter back to the Chancellor. The High Court noted that there was no university in the country awarding a postgraduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and therefore, there were no subject experts in the field.

Following the remand, the Chancellor passed a fresh order on 24 August 2012, again rejecting the appellant’s appointment. The appellant then filed another writ petition (Writ Petition No. 63137 of 2012), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 14 May 2015. The High Court upheld the Chancellor’s decision, stating that ‘Karm Kand’ is a distinct subject from Sanskrit and that the appellant did not possess the necessary qualifications. This dismissal led to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily refers to the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the First Statutes of the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University, 1977. The key provisions are:

Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973: This section deals with the powers and functions of the Executive Council of the University. The proviso to this section allows the Executive Council to refer the recommendations of the Selection Committees to the Chancellor.
Section 25(1)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973: This section empowers the Academic Council to advise the Executive Council regarding the qualifications required for persons imparting instructions on particular subjects.
Statute 11.01(1) of the University First Statutes, 1977: This statute stipulates that the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the University include a Master’s Degree or equivalent degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks, a consistently good academic record, and NET or Ph.D. degree.

The Court noted that the statutes of the University did not specify any particular qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. The Chancellor’s order dated 24 August 2012, also conceded that there is no mention of the subject ‘Karm Kand’ in the Statutes of the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, nor any Ordinance under Section 51/52, nor any Regulations under Section 53 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides focused on the interpretation of “relevant subject” for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’, and the validity of the selection process.

Appellant’s Submissions:

The appellant argued that he possessed a Master’s degree in a relevant subject, as required by the University statutes.
He contended that the University’s statutes did not specify a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’ as a mandatory qualification.
The appellant highlighted that he had been teaching ‘Karm Kand’ in the University for the past 16 years, demonstrating his expertise in the subject.
He pointed out that the Selection Committee, which included members from the Department of Sanskrit, had found him eligible for the post.
The appellant argued that the Academic Council of the University had also recommended that the academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ should be the same as that for a Professor of Sanskrit.

University’s Submissions:

The University initially argued that the selection process was flawed because the Vice-Chancellor did not request the Chancellor to nominate subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’ for the Selection Committee.
The University, through the Chancellor, later contended that ‘Karm Kand’ is a distinct subject from Sanskrit and that the appellant did not possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject.
The University relied on the opinion of Professor Gaya Ram Pandey, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, who stated that ‘Karm Kand’ is a practical subject, unlike Sanskrit.
The University also argued that some other universities offer degrees in ‘Karm Kand’/Paurohitya, indicating that it is a specialized field.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in emphasizing the practical experience and the recommendation of the Academic Council, while the University’s argument was based on a narrow interpretation of “relevant subject” and the need for subject experts, which was ultimately found to be flawed.

Submissions Table

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions (Appellant)	Sub-Submissions (University)
Qualifications for the Post	✓ Possesses a Master’s degree in a relevant subject. ✓ University statutes do not mandate a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’.	✓ ‘Karm Kand’ is a distinct subject from Sanskrit. ✓ Appellant lacks a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’.
Experience and Expertise	✓ Has been teaching ‘Karm Kand’ in the University for 16 years. ✓ Selection Committee found him eligible.	✓ Relied on the opinion of Professor Gaya Ram Pandey that ‘Karm Kand’ is a practical subject.
Validity of Selection Process	✓ Academic Council recommended that qualifications for ‘Karm Kand’ be the same as for Professor of Sanskrit.	✓ Selection process was flawed due to non-inclusion of subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’. ✓ Some universities offer degrees in ‘Karm Kand’/Paurohitya.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the issues can be inferred from the judgment.

Whether the statutes of the University prescribe any specific qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.
If not, what should be considered as the “relevant subject” and by whom.
Whether the Chancellor’s decision to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee was justified.
Whether the opinion of the Academic Council regarding the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ should be considered.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue	Court’s Treatment
Whether the statutes of the University prescribe any specific qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’	The Court found that the statutes of the University did not prescribe any specific qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.
If not, what should be considered as the “relevant subject” and by whom.	The Court held that the question of what constitutes a “relevant subject” should have been determined by experts before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes did not specify any qualifications. The Court also noted that the Academic Council is empowered to advise on the qualifications required for persons imparting instructions on particular subjects.
Whether the Chancellor’s decision to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee was justified.	The Court found that the Chancellor’s decision to reject the recommendation was not justified as the Chancellor had gone beyond the scope of the remand order and had also relied on information gathered behind the back of the appellant.
Whether the opinion of the Academic Council regarding the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ should be considered.	The Court held that the opinion of the Academic Council, which recommended that the academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ should be the same as that for a Professor of Sanskrit, was crucial and should have been considered.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How it was Considered	Legal Point
Punjab University vs. Narinder Kumar and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 8	Supreme Court of India	Distinguished	Interpretation of “relevant subject” in cases where the advertisement provides a clue.
Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767	Supreme Court of India	Distinguished	Selection of a candidate with a Master’s degree in Mathematics instead of Computer Applications.
Section 25(1)(c) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973		Considered	Empowers the Academic Council to advise the Executive Council regarding qualifications for instructors.
Statute 11.01(1) of the University First Statutes, 1977		Considered	Minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and the authorities presented. The following table summarizes how each submission was treated by the Court:

Submission	How it was Treated by the Court
Appellant possesses a Master’s degree in a relevant subject.	The Court agreed that the appellant possessed a Master’s degree and that the statutes did not specify a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’ as mandatory.
University statutes do not mandate a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’.	The Court concurred that there was no specific prescription for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ in the University statutes.
Appellant has been teaching ‘Karm Kand’ for 16 years.	The Court acknowledged the appellant’s long tenure as a Guest Lecturer, teaching ‘Karm Kand’ in the same University.
Selection Committee found the appellant eligible.	The Court noted that the Selection Committee, which included members from the Department of Sanskrit, had found the appellant eligible for the post.
Academic Council recommended qualifications for ‘Karm Kand’ be the same as for Professor of Sanskrit.	The Court emphasized the importance of the Academic Council’s recommendation and stated that it should have been considered.
‘Karm Kand’ is a distinct subject from Sanskrit.	The Court rejected this argument, stating that the Chancellor went on a detour to find out the differences between Sanskrit and ‘Karm Kand’, which was erroneous.
Appellant lacks a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’.	The Court found this argument irrelevant as there was no specific requirement for a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’ in the statutes.
Selection process was flawed due to non-inclusion of subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’.	The Court noted that the initial objection was that the Selection Committee did not include subject experts, but when it was pointed out that there were no such experts, the Chancellor went on a detour.
Some universities offer degrees in ‘Karm Kand’/Paurohitya.	The Court acknowledged that some universities offer degrees in ‘Karm Kand’ but found it irrelevant to the case as the University’s statutes did not mandate such a degree.

The Court also considered the authorities cited and how they were used in its reasoning:

Punjab University vs. Narinder Kumar and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 8: The Court distinguished this case, stating that while it dealt with the interpretation of “relevant subject,” it had a clue in the advertisement itself, which was not the case here.
Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767: The Court distinguished this case because, unlike the present case, candidates with the required qualifications were available in that case.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors: The absence of specific qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ in the University statutes, the appellant’s long tenure and practical experience in teaching the subject, the recommendation of the Selection Committee which included members from the Department of Sanskrit, and the opinion of the Academic Council that the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ should be the same as that for a Professor of Sanskrit. The Court also emphasized that the Chancellor had gone beyond the scope of the remand order and had also relied on information gathered behind the back of the appellant.

Reason	Sentiment	Percentage
Absence of specific qualifications in statutes	Neutral	20%
Appellant’s long tenure and experience	Positive	30%
Selection Committee’s recommendation	Positive	20%
Academic Council’s opinion	Positive	20%
Chancellor’s overreach	Negative	10%

Fact:Law Ratio:

Category	Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects)	60%
Law (Consideration of legal aspects)	40%

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations, such as the appellant’s experience and the Selection Committee’s recommendation, and legal considerations, such as the interpretation of the statutes and the powers of the Academic Council.

Issue: No specific qualifications for Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’

↓

University should have defined “relevant subject” before selection

↓

Appellant had a Master’s degree and 16 years of experience

↓

Academic Council’s opinion favored appellant

↓

Chancellor’s rejection was unjustified

↓

Court directed regularization of appellant’s services

The Supreme Court found that the Chancellor’s decision was not justified. The Court observed:

“Obviously the consultations made by the Chancellor with certain persons and the information gathered by him before passing the order impugned before the High Court, were beyond the scope of order of remand passed by the High Court. The information collected by the Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection of the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the appellant.”

The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to consider the minutes of the Academic Council meeting, which had recommended that the qualifications for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ should be the same as that for a Professor of Sanskrit.

“If only the High Court had looked into the minutes of the meetings of the Academic Council it could have easily appreciated that the appellant was entitled to succeed.”

The Court concluded that the appellant had been a victim of a power struggle between the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor and that the University should regularize his services.

“Hence it is time for the University to put an end to this ‘Yuddh Kand’ and allow the appellant to move from ‘Karm Kand’ to ‘Karm Phal Kand’.”

Key Takeaways

Importance of Statutes: Universities must adhere to their statutes and clearly define qualifications for posts, especially when specific qualifications are not prescribed.
Role of Academic Council: The opinion of the Academic Council regarding qualifications for teaching positions is crucial and should be given due consideration.
Practical Experience: Practical experience and long tenure in a relevant field can be considered when assessing a candidate’s eligibility, especially when specific qualifications are not defined.
Fair Selection Process: Selection processes should be fair, transparent, and not influenced by extraneous factors or personal disputes.
Scope of Remand: Authorities should not go beyond the scope of a remand order and should not gather information behind the back of the concerned party.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the 5th respondent-University to regularize the services of the appellant, considering his long tenure and the original Selection Committee’s recommendation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the statutes of a University do not prescribe specific qualifications for a post, the University should define the “relevant subject” before the selection process begins. The opinion of the Academic Council on qualifications is crucial and should be given due consideration. Additionally, practical experience and long tenure in a relevant field can be considered when assessing a candidate’s eligibility. This judgment emphasizes the need for universities to ensure fair and transparent selection processes, free from extraneous influences. The judgment clarifies that when there are no specific qualifications prescribed, the selection should be based on the opinion of subject experts or the academic council of the university.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs. State of U.P. is a significant ruling that clarifies the criteria for appointment of lecturers in universities, especially when specific qualifications are not prescribed in the statutes. The Court emphasized the importance of the Academic Council’s opinion and the need for fair and transparent selection processes. By directing the University to regularize the appellant’s services, the Supreme Court has provided relief to a deserving candidate who had been caught in a bureaucratic crossfire.

FAQ

Q: What happens if a university’s statutes don’t specify qualifications for a particular teaching post?: A: The university should define the “relevant subject” before the selection process starts, and the opinion of the Academic Council should be considered.
Q: Can a university reject a candidate recommended by the Selection Committee?: A: A university can reject a candidate if there are valid reasons, but this should not be based on extraneous factors or personal disputes. The selection process should be fair and transparent.
Q: What role does the Academic Council play in appointments?: A: The Academic Council’s opinion on qualifications for teaching positions is crucial and should be given due consideration by the university.
Q: Is practical experience considered when assessing a candidate’s eligibility?: A: Yes, practical experience and long tenure in a relevant field can be considered, especially when specific qualifications are not defined in the statutes.
Q: What should a university do if there is a dispute between the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor?: A: Universities should ensure that their processes are not influenced by such disputes and that the selection process is fair and transparent.
Q: What does it mean when a case is remanded back to an authority?: A: When a case is remanded, the authority must reconsider the matter based on the directions given by the court. The authority should not go beyond the scope of the remand order.

Source: Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs. State of U.P.