Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Lecturer Despite Procedural Lapses: Ram Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2022

Citation: (Not Available in Source)

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a university lecturer’s appointment be invalidated years after the fact due to alleged procedural errors in the selection process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a lecturer’s appointment was challenged by the Chancellor of the University. The core issue revolved around whether the absence of a formal requisition for subject expert nominations and the subsequent appointment of the lecturer was valid under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

In 2002, Bundelkhand University advertised various teaching faculty positions. The appellant, Ram Chandra, applied and was interviewed by a Selection Committee constituted under Section 31(4) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Act’). Although initially not found suitable, he was appointed as a Lecturer in Geology on February 28, 2002.

Later in 2002, another advertisement was issued for the post of Reader in Geology. The Selection Committee, again constituted as per the statutory provisions, found the appellant suitable and recommended him for the position. The Executive Council of the University accepted this recommendation on February 1, 2003, and the appellant was appointed as Reader.

Years later, complaints were made to the Hon’ble Chancellor alleging that the appellant’s appointment was not in accordance with the law. The Hon’ble Chancellor initiated a suo motu inquiry under Section 68 of the 1973 Act. The Chancellor concluded that the appointment was not legal and issued an order on March 3, 2014, setting aside the appellant’s appointments and promotions. Consequently, the appellant’s service was terminated on March 7, 2014.

The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on March 25, 2014. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, thereby upholding the Chancellor’s order that had terminated the services of the appellant. The High Court did not provide any specific reasons for the dismissal in the source document.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. Specifically, sub-section (4) of Section 31, which deals with the constitution of the Selection Committee for the appointment of teachers in the University, is relevant.

Section 31(4)(a) of the 1973 Act states that the Selection Committee shall consist of three experts nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor. The Hon’ble Chancellor found that the University had not sought nominations for subject experts after 2001, and that he had not appointed any subject experts for the selection process that led to the appellant’s appointment.

The Hon’ble Chancellor initiated suo motu enquiry under Section 68 of the 1973 Act. Section 68 of the 1973 Act empowers the Chancellor to conduct inquiries into the affairs of the university.

Arguments

The appellant argued that his appointment as a Lecturer and subsequently as a Reader was done after following the due selection process as prescribed by the 1973 Act. He contended that the Selection Committee for the post of Reader included two experts nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor, namely, Prof. S.K. Lunkad and Prof. Y.P. Gupta.

The appellant further argued that if the University failed to seek fresh nominations from the Hon’ble Chancellor, he should not be penalized for the University’s lapse.

The Respondent-University argued that the appointment of the appellant was not legal as the Selection Committee was not properly constituted as per Section 31(4)(a) of the 1973 Act, which requires three experts to be nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor. The Hon’ble Chancellor observed that the University had not sought nominations for a panel of experts after 2001.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the provided document. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the appointment of the appellant as Reader was illegal due to procedural irregularities in the constitution of the Selection Committee, specifically regarding the nomination of subject experts by the Hon’ble Chancellor.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Section 31(4)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: This provision specifies the composition of the Selection Committee, including the requirement of three experts nominated by the Chancellor.

✓ Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: This provision empowers the Chancellor to conduct inquiries into the affairs of the university.

Judgment

The Court observed that the Selection Committee included Prof. S.K. Lunkad and Prof. Y.P. Gupta, who were nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor. The Court stated that,

“It can thus clearly be seen that the Selection Committee consisted of two Chancellor’s nominees.”

The Court further noted that,

“In any case, if fresh nominations were not sought for by the University from the Hon’ble Chancellor, the appellant cannot be faulted with.”

The Court also highlighted that the appellant had served for 12 years before his termination and that there was no finding that he did not possess the required qualifications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Selection Committee did include two experts nominated by the Chancellor, and that the appellant was not at fault for any procedural lapses on the part of the University. The court emphasized that the appellant had undergone the entire selection process and had served for 12 years without any question on his qualification. The court seemed to lean towards ensuring fairness and preventing the appellant from being penalized for the University’s procedural oversights.

The Court’s reasoning was that even though there was a procedural lapse on the part of the University, the appellant should not be penalized for the same. The Court noted that the Selection Committee did include two experts nominated by the Hon’ble Chancellor. The Court also took into account the fact that the appellant had served for a long period of time and that there was no finding that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification.

The Court stated,

“There is no finding in the impugned order of the High Court that the appellant does not possess the requisite qualification.”

Key Takeaways

• Procedural lapses by the University cannot be a ground to terminate an employee when the employee is not at fault.
• The presence of two experts nominated by the Chancellor in the Selection Committee was considered sufficient for the selection process.
• Long service without any questions raised on the qualification of the employee is a factor that weighs in favor of the employee.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

✓ The orders passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, the Registrar of the University, and the High Court were quashed and set aside.

✓ The appellant was entitled to all terminal benefits, treating the period between the date of termination and the date of retirement as a period in continuous service.

✓ The appellant was not entitled to back wages for the period during which he was out of employment.

✓ All terminal benefits were to be paid within three months from the date of the judgment.

✓ The appellant was directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the University accommodation within three months from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Not Applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment.)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee should not be penalized for the procedural lapses of the employer, particularly when the employee has undergone the selection process and has served for a considerable period without any questions raised on their qualifications. This judgment emphasizes the principle of fairness and substantial compliance with the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Hon’ble Chancellor, the Registrar of the University, and the High Court. The Court held that the appellant’s appointment was not illegal, and he was entitled to all terminal benefits, except back wages. The judgment underscores the importance of fairness and the principle that an employee should not suffer due to procedural lapses of the employer, especially when the employee has undergone the selection process and served for a considerable period without any questions raised on their qualifications.