ORDER
R.C. Lahoti, J.
1. The petitioner who is an Advocate and also a citizen-resident of Sidhi, a place situated within the educational territorial jurisdiction of the Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwa Vidyalaya, Rewa (hereinafter, the University, for short) and also a member of the Court of the University, has filed this petition in dual capacity, as a public spirited citizen and as a member of the Court of the University, vitally interested in the legal and lawful discharge of functions and duties cast on the Academic Council of the University. The petitioner challenges the advertisement dated 1-7-1992 issued by the University inviting applications for appointments to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in different subjects and the constitution of the several Selection Committees constituted for making selections.
2. On 1-7-1992, the respondent University issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of four Professors (one each in English, Mathematics, Psychology and Environmental Biology), six Readers (one each in different subjects) and eight Lecturers (one each in different subjects). The last date for reaching the applications was 3rd August 1992. The Academic Council in its meeting dated 27-8-1992 constituted several Selection Committees to conduct interviews of candidates for different subjects on different dates. According to the petitioner, the advertisements and the constitution of the Selection Committees, both were not in order and hence both were liable to be quashed.
3. The process of selection had not commenced until 24-9-1993, the date on which this petition was filed. Vide order dated 29-9-1993, this Court directed the process of selection to continue but the orders of appointment not to issue until further orders. Admittedly, the process of selection has been completed and the appointments have been held in abeyance awaiting the final decision of this Court.
4. In the matter of advertisement Annex. P/l, the objection of the petitioner is that it does not mention (i) the detailed minimum qualifications expected of the applicants, (ii) the percentage of reservation or the number of posts reserved for SC/ST candidates. It was also defective because it was not published in all-India newspapers though required to be so published by the norms laid down by the University Grants Commission.
5. The challenge to the constitution of the Selection Committees is laid on the ground that ‘persons connected with the University’ were nominated on Selection Committees. Such nominated persons were Dr. A. S. Ashthana, Professor R. N. Mishra and Shri I. S. Mohar whose presence in Selection Committees vitiated the constitution thereof. In petitioner’s submission, all experts on the Panel of Selection Committees have to be chosen by resolution of the Academic Council but the Academic Council did not pass any resolution and abdicated its corporate function to the Vice-Chancellor which vitiated the process of nomination of experts. To put it in other words, there was no nomination of experts by the Academic Council at all and nomination made by the Vice-Chancellor could not be called nomination of experts by the Academic Council. It is also alleged that the Vice-Chancellor had used his pressure on the Selection Committees rendering the selection non est. In the end, it has been also suggested that the advertisements were issued on 1-7-1992 while the selection took place in the month of September, 1993, that is after a lapse of about fourteen months, which delay has resulted in the University being deprived of the opportunity of selecting the best available in the market, as during this period of fourteen months, there were several eligible candidates having entered the eligibility zone who were deprived of the opportunity of making applications for selection to the posts advertised.
6. The respondent University has, in its return, denied all the material averments made in the petition. The substance of the pleas taken in the return shall be noticed and dealt with at appropriate places so as to avoid duplication in the statement of the pleas.
THE ADVERTISEMENT ANNEXURE/P-1 :
7. We extract and reproduce hereunder so much part of the advertisement as would be necessary for the purpose of dealing with the challenges laid by the petitioner. After stating the number of posts available, the advertisement states :-
“The minimum qualifications and the scales of pay of these posts are as prescribed by the University Grants Commission from time to time. The minimum and the additional/desirable qualifications prescribed of the posts will be circulated by way of a hand-out to the candidates concerned along with application forms.”
XXX XXX XXX "Usual reservation exists for SC/ST candidates". XXX XXX XXX "Prescribed forms of applications can be had in person from the Registrar's office on any working day on payment of Rs. 10/- in cash or by crossed demand draft drawn in favour of Registrar...........or by post on payment of.........."
According to the respondents, each of the candidates purchasing the prescribed application forms was handed over a handout (produced for the perusal of the Court at the time of hearing) which stated in details the minimum qualifications. We have carefully perused the handout. It is in accordance with the requirements laid down by the U.G.C. inasmuch as the handout accompanied the application forms purchased by the candidates, they were made well aware of the minimum qualifications before making the application. It cannot, therefore, be said that any one making the application was not aware in advance of the minimum qualifications laid down by the U.G.C. Moreover, the minimum qualifications laid down by the U.G.C. are uniform for the whole country. They did not change from university to university. Anyone desirous of seeking appointment against any of the posts advertised is aware of the qualifications, though he might be residing in any part of the country. In our opinion, the advertisement was not rendered defective simply because the minimum qualifications were not stated in the advertisement. It has also not been demonstrated, what prejudice if any, was caused to any of the applicants or the University merely because the minimum qualifications were not mentioned in the advertisement.
8. In so far as the question of reservation is concerned, the respondents have stated that by “usual reservation” means the reservation as provided by the U.G.C. in its policy dated 31-12-1991 forming part of the document Annexure R/10, which is well known and which was observed also. The University Grants Commission has provided :-
“On the basis of instructions issued by the Government of India, the Commission requested the Central Universities to provide reservation to the extent of 15% for SC and 7.5% for ST for appointments to teaching posts up to the level of Lecturer.”
According to the respondents, the reservation is only in the posts of Lecturer and not on the posts of Reader and Professor where candidates of specialty or super-specialty qualifications are recruited. Reservation in the post of Lecturer was observed as five candidates only in general category were selected; one Lecturer belonging to S.C. has been selected; and two posts were left unfilled, for want of eligible candidates.
9. The reservation quota laid down by the U.G.C. is well known at least in the world of university education. Inasmuch as reservation quota has been observed in its compliance, we do not think that merely because the percentage of reservation or the number of reserved posts in the category of Lecturers was not mentioned, the advertisement would stand vitiated. Even if it would have been mentioned that there was no reservation in the posts advertised, candidates belonging to SC/ST would not have been prevented from making the applications. Even if the exact percentage of reservation or number of reserved posts of Lecturer would have been mentioned in the advertisement, that would not have made any difference inasmuch as the jog-seekers, whether from general category or from reserved category, would have made applications. The reservation policy was to be observed not at the point of making the applications but at the point of making the selections. Mentioning in the advertisement of the existence of “usual reservation” for SC/ST candidates was enough to serve its purpose by attracting SC/ST candidates in making application, as they knew that reservation was there though its extent was not disclosed.
10. At the time of hearing, Dr. K. C. Mathur, a Professor of the University and Officer-in-charge of the case, filed his affidavit dated 13-12-1993 stating that the advertisement was published in University News, a weekly Chronicle of Higher Education, published by the Association of Indian Universities, having wide circulation, and also in daily newspapers such as Deshbandhu Satna, Dainik Jagaran Rewa, and further that an intimation of advertisement was sent to all universities of the State and other educational authorities of M. P. as also the University Grants Commission, New Delhi. It is further stated in the affidavit that as against 18 posts for which selection was to be made there were available 133 candidates hailing from the States of M. P., Bihar, U. P., Maharashtra and Haryana meaning thereby that wide publicity was secured by the advertisement and the purpose behind all India publicity was achieved. The record of the advertisement made available for our perusal supports the plea setout in the return.
11. Emphasis is laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following provision contained in the Brochure issued by the Government of M. P., Higher Education Department entitled Scheme of Revision of Pay Scales and Fixation of pay and other measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education (November 1988) :-
“Recruitments to the posts of Lecturers, Readers and Professors in Universities and colleges shall be on the basis of merit through All India Advertisement and Selection”.
12. It appears that a copy of the advertisement Annexure P/l was also forwarded to Times of India, an established English newspaper having All India circulation but it seems that therein the advertisement was not published. However, the requirement laid down by the U.G.C. is one of “all-India advertisement” and not one of ‘publication in all-India newspapers’. A copy of University News which is a weekly chronicle of Higher Education and Research circulated all over India has been made available for our perusal. We find the advertisement having been published therein in its issue dated 13th of July, 1992. It is not disputed that the journal is published by the Association of Indian Universities and its circulation is throughout the country. It can be safely assumed that it is subscribed to by all the Universities of the country and it is read by all those who are in any way associated with higher education or the education usually imparted by the universities. From the nature of the advertisements usually published in the University News, it can also be assumed safely that persons aspiring for teaching jobs in the universities keep an eye on the University News for the purpose of finding out the vacancies available and held out for filling. In the absence of the requirement as to all-India advertisement having been accompanied by any further requirements or norms as to its nature or medium, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be held that the purpose of all India advertisement was achieved by the manner adopted by the respondents. In any case, the omission, if any, was not deliberate one or associated with mala fides. The advertisement achieved the purpose of providing a consideration zone of more than 1:7 to the University and hence the advertisement with whatever mode and medium of publicity adopted, had achieved its purpose.
13. The foot-note to the advertisement annexure R/ll which is the same as Annexure P/l, shows the copies of the advertisement having been endorsed and forwarded to the following :-
“1. The Editor, Desh Bandhu, Satna/Dainik Jagaran, Rewa/The Times of India, New Delhi/University News, Association of Indian Universities, 16, Kotla Marg, New Delhi, Employment News Delhi, Nai Duniya, Indore.
2. The Secretary to the Governor of M. P. Raj Bhawan, Bhopal.
3. The Secretary, M. P. Uchcha Shiksha Anudan Ayog, E-2/84, Arera Colony, Bhopal.
4. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
5. The Registrar of All India Universities.
6. Dean, College Development Council, A.P.S. University, Rewa (M. P.).
7. All Heads of Teaching Departments.
8. The Employment Office, Rewa (M. P.).
9. Dean, Students’ Welfare.
10. Secretary to V.C./P.A. to Registrar.
11. Finance Section.
12. Development Section.
13. All Officers of the University.
14. All Sections of the University.”
Though material has not been produced before us to show that the advertisement had in fact reached all the fourteen destinations abovesaid, but a genuine effort made at giving the advertisement as wide publicity as possible is apparent. Even if an argument be available that still better and still wider publicity could have been given yet that would not vitiate the advertisement. It is important to mention that not a single person has come either to the University or before this Court complaining of his having been denied of the opportunity of seeking the job for want of all-India publicity though by this time, a period of about sixteen months has elapsed from the date of advertisement.
14. The challenge laid to the validity of the advertisement fails on all the counts.
CONSTITUTION OF SELECTION COMMITTEES :-
15. The precise question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, experts on the panel of Selection Committees can be said to have been nominated by the Academic Council ? Section 49 of the M. P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for appointment to teaching posts. No appointment to any teaching post including as a Professor, Reader or Lecturer can be made except on the recommendation of a Committee of Selection constituted in accordance with sub-section (2). The members of the Committee of Selection must include one expert in the subject ‘not connected with the University in any manner whatsoever to be nominated by the Academic Council and three experts not connected with the University in any manner whatsoever nominated by the Kulpati.’
16. Copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Academic Council held on 27-8-1992 has been filed. As per Section 25 of the Act, the Academic Council consists of 31, members of these, 18 were present in the meeting presided over by the Kulpati (Vice-Chancellor). The quorum is formed by 12 members which it was there. The relevant resolution is at No. 5. The proceedings show that the Academic Council has not arrived at choice of any one expert in each of the subjects under consideration, for nomination on the selection committees relevant to different subjects. Panels of more than one names were formulated. The Academic Council then resolved that the members might give their proposals in writing to the Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor might then nominate any one as an expert on the selection committee. The affidavit filed by Dr. K. C. Mathur states that the names of the different experts in different selection committees were all suggested by the members of the Academic Council in the meeting so as to form Panels subject wise and then the choice was left to the Vice-Chancellor for choosing out one name for each subject out of the names on panels formulated by the Academic Council expressing its voice through the member present and participating in the meeting. This was the practice followed on the earlier occasions also. Now, can it be said that the nomination of the experts in the selection committees of several subjects was by the Academic Council ?
17. Detailed procedure for the conduct of the meetings of the Academic Council is not provided by the Act. Whatever is provided is to be found contained in Regulation No. 2 (see Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwa Vidyalaya Calendar 1985, pp. 400,401). The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Regulation which read as under:-
“12. Except as provided otherwise, all acts of the Academic Council and all questions coming or arising before them shall be done and decided by the majority of such members thereof as are present and vote at the meeting.”
“13. The Chairman shall have a vote and in vote”.
The record of the proceedings, as explained at the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the respondents with the assistance of the officer-in-charge, shows that the members of the Academic Council present and participating had not achieved or could not possibly achieve unanimity on single name per subject; they therefore, formed panels. The Chairman, that is the Vice-Chancellor, was left with the final choice. The Chairman had a vote of his own and also a casting vote. It can safely be assumed that the members of the Academic Council were agreeable to more names than one and each name had support of all the members. It was the vote of the Chairman which was going to be decisive.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if that was the position then the subject should have been put to vote and decided by majority then and there. The submission may be logical but the real question to be examined is if in the absence of the subject having been put to vote, does the resolution stand vitiated ?
19. Shackleton in his work “The Law and Practice of Meetings’ (6th Edition 1977) in Chapter vii refers to five forms of voting : (i) show of hands, (ii) acclamation, (iii) ballot, (iv) division ,(v) poll. However, the forms are not exhaustive. Statutes, Regulations, Enactments and practice and even convenience, may provide for other forms. The fact remains that in the case at hand the members of the Academic Council having deliberated over the subject, had left the final choice with the Chairman consistently with the established practice followed by the Academic Council of the University. It was stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that such a practice had originated with a laudable object behind. The choice in the matter of forming panels having been exercised by the Academic Council, the final choice was left with the Kulpati which manifested the confidence reposed by the Academic Council in the Kulpati and the name of expert finally chosen by the Kulpati out of the panel remained a secret which added to the fairness and impartiality of the selection because the candidates participating at the selection could not know the name of the expert beforehand.
20. In Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University and Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh, AIR 1954 SC 217, a subject was taken up for consideration at the meeting of the university which was not on the agenda and in the absence of a member. The resolution was carried out unanimously. It was reaffirmed in a subsequent meeting where the previous absentee member was present but some other member was again absent and there too it was done without the subject being on agenda. Disposing of the challenge laid to the validity of the resolutions, their Lordships held :
“Though an incorporated body like an University is a legal entity it has neither a living mind nor voice. It can only express its will in a formal way by a formal resolution and so can only act in its corporate capacity by resolutions properly considered, carried and duly recorded in the manner laid down by its constitution. If its rules require such resolutions to be moved and passed in a meeting called for the purpose, then every member of the body entitled to take part in the meeting must be given notice so that he can attend and express his views. Individual assents given separately cannot be regarded as equivalent to the assent of a meeting because the incorporated body is different from the persons of which it is imposed. Hence, an omission to give proper notice even to a single member in these circumstances would invalidate the meeting and that in turn would invalidate resolutions which purport to have been passed as it. But this is only when such inflexible rigidity is imposed by the incorporating constitution. The position is different when, either by custom or by the nature of the body or by its constitution and rules, greater latitude and flexibility are permissible. Each case must be governed by its own facts and no universal rule can be laid down; also it may well be that in the same body certain things, such as routine matters, can be disposed of more easily and with less formality than others. It alt depends on the nature of the body and its rules. The substance is more important than the form and if there is substantial compliance with the spirit and substance of the law, an unessential defect in form will not be allowed to defeat what is otherwise a proper and valid resolution.
21. We are dealing with the proceedings of an autonomous academic body where inflexible rigidity has to be kept out of arena unless imposed by the incorporating constitution. None of the members of the Academic Council has chosen to lay challenge to the choice of the experts made by the Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner was not a member of Academic Council. It is nobody’s case that the choice made by the Vice-Chancellor had fallen upon any one such who was incapable of acting as an expert in the selection committee. In such facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the challenge that the experts in the subjects were not nominated by the Academic Council appears to have been thrown for its sake and is of no substance. The choice of experts expressed by the Academic Council through the Vice-Chancellor shall be deemed to be nomination by the Academic Council within the meaning of Section 49(2) of M. P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
22. Examining the validity of meeting and resolution passed thereat, in Narsimhiah v. Singri Gowda, AIR 1966 SC 330, vide para 15, their Lordships have emphasised the necessity of considering the object of the provision and the manner in which the object is sought to be achieved as indicative of the legislative intent. Looked at from this angle also, we find our conclusion abovesaid reaffirmed The submission that the Academic Council had instead of nominating the experts by itself, had delegated its power to the Vice-Chancellor is wholly devoid of any merit and is rejected.
IF PERSONS CONNECTED WITH UNIVERSITY WERE NOMINATED IN SELECTION COMMITTEES ?
23. The persons said to be ‘connected with the University’ and yet nominated as experts on selection committees are said to be three; namely, Dr. I. S. Mohar, Dr. H. S. Ashthana, Dr. R. N. Mishra.
24. Dr. I. S. Mohar was an expert in the subject of Psychology in the selection committee constituted for selecting Professors. One A. K. Shrivastava was a candidate. It is suggested by the document Annexure P/8 that in the year 1985 Dr. I. S. Mohar and A. K. Shrivastava had worked respectively as Head of the Department and Lecturer in Kurukshetra University and M. D. University. Rohtak.
25. “Persons connected with University” is not a vague phrase. It is to be found defined by clause (xxi) of Section 4 of the Act, which reads as under –
“(xxi) – ‘Persons connected with a University or a College’ means an employee of the University or a College or a member of any authority or body of the university or of the management of the college.”
Certainly Dr. I. S. Mohar does not fall within the mischief of the definition. He cannot also be said to be a person connected with any candidate,. Merely because seven or eight years before, the two had served in the same University though in different capacities in the same department, it cannot be said that they were so connected with each other as to vitiate the process of selection of one by association of the other in the process of selection.
26. As to Dr H S Ashthana, it is alleged in para 14 of the petition that on 3 10 1989, he was appointed as external expert. Member of Board of Studies in Psychology and hence he was a person connected with the university. The respondents have staged in the return that the appointment of Dr. H. S. Ashthana made on 3-10-1989 was for a term of three years which had expired on 3-10-1992 and with that date he had ceased to hold that assignment. This factual position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, at, the time of selection, Dr. H. S. Ashthana had ceased to be a person connected with the university. His, participation did not, therefore, vitiate the proceedings of the selection committee where he sat as, an expert.
27. The case of Professor R. N. Mishra is a little complex and needs deep scrutiny. It is admitted that vide notification dated ‘1-8-1991, Professor R. N. Mishra was appointed Member of M. Phil. Committee of Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archaeology and in that capacity he was a person connected with the university. However, according to the respondents, Professor, R. N. Mishra had resigned on 8-7-1993 vide Annexure R/9 and hence he had, ceased to be a member of the M. Phil. Committee, abovesaid, with effect from : that date, that is, before the date of selection made by this committee.
28. Annexure R/9, is a letter of resignation dated 8-7-1993 .scribed on the letterhead of Dr. R. N. Mishra submitted under his hand. It is addressed to Professor J. S. Rathore, the then Vice Chancellor of the University, and states that for personal reasons he was resigning with immediate effect from the membership of the M. Phil Committee. This letter of resignation/bears several endorsements on its face which purport to show that it was in warded in the office of the Vice-Chancellor on 13-7-1993, on the same day, the Vice-chancellor made an endorsement “resignation accepted” and then marked it to the Professor R. K. Verma. Head of the Department. On 17-7-1993, there is proposal for nominating Professor V.D. Mishra in the vacancy created by resignation of Dr. R. N. Mishra which proposal was accepted by the Vice-Chancellor on the same day. The letter is then marked to the Registrar The affidavit dated 13-12-1993 filed by Dr. K C. Mathur shows the resignation letter having been received by the office of the Registrar on 29-7-1993; meaning thereby that the resignation letter had reached the Registrar on 29-7-1993.
29. The [earned counsel for the petitioner attempted at building up an argument by placing reliance on several intrinsic circumstances that this resignation letter dated 8-7-1993 was a false and fabricated document brought into existence antedated so as to manipulate a defence to the challenge laid in the petition. But we are not convinced. The petitioner is pulling too long a rope by suggesting that the high officials and eminent personalities like Vice- Chancellor, Head of the Department and Registrar would all mix up and conspire in falsely bringing into existence the resignation letter by Dr. R. N. Mishra as is depicted by the document Annexure R/9 which is a photo copy of the original, the ‘original itself having been produced before us at the time of hearing. The suggestion of the resignation letter being a false, fabricated and antedated document is discarded at its threshold. We would only examine the legal aspects touching the resignation and determine whether in the eye of law. Professor R. N. Mishra had ceased to be a member of M. Phil. Committee with effect from 8-7-1993 or even a latter date consequent to his resignation.
30. The relevant provision is to be found contained in Section 65(i) of the Act which reads as under :-
“65(i)- any member Other than an ex officio member of the Court, the Executive: Council, the Academic Council or any Other University Authority or Committee or Dean of a faculty may resign by a letter addressed to the Registrar and resignation shall take effect as soon as the letter is received by the Registrar.”
31. Shri R. N. Mishra being a member of a Committee he could have resigned but only by a letter addressed to the Registrar and that resignation shall take effect no sooner it reaches the Registrar. The Registrar has no discretion in the matter of accepting or not the resignation received by him. The law creates a fiction. The physical reaching of the letter of resignation to the Registrar results in its acceptance and taking effect. The requirements are two. To be a letter of resignation, it must be addressed to the Registrar. If it is so addressed, to be effective it has to reach in the physical proximity of the Registrar. Negatively put, a letter of resignation would not be so if it was not addressed to the Registrar and though addressed to the Registrar, it shall not take effect unless it was received by the Registrar.
32. Needless to say, the letter Annexure R/9 is not addressed to the Registrar. It is addressed to the Vice-Chancellor. It is therefore not a letter of resignation. Had it been addressed to the Registrar, it would have taken effect on 29-7-1993 when it reached the Registrar without regard to the fact that that it was submitted to the Vice-Chancellor. The endorsement of the Vice-Chancellor dated 13-7-1993 – “resignation accepted” is meaningless and has no legal efficacy at all”. We are hot prepared to accept the suggestion, as was Sought to be made on behalf of the respondents, that Professor R. N. Mishra though’ a member of a committee of the university, would not know who was to be addressed in the event of an occasion arising for writing a letter of resignation. In our opinion, resignation is not a routine matter. It has to be (sic) with caution and care. That is why the Legislature was persuaded to enact a specific provision in Section 65 of the Act. The Legislature did not stop by merely enacting that any member of the Court, committee etc. could resign. It further went on to specifically enact that the resignation could be by a letter addressed to the Registrar and would take effect on receipt thereof by the Registrar. The language of the provision is suggestive of the legislative intent of excluding any other mode or method of resignation and its effectiveness. In our opinion, the document Annexure R/9 did not have the effect of snapping the relationship of Professor R. N, Mishra with the University as ‘a person connected with the university’ within the meaning of Clause (xxi) of Section 4 of the Act, either on 8-7-1993, the date of resignation, or on 13-7-1993, the date of its acceptance by the Vice-Chancellor, or even on 27-9-1993 when the letter reached the Registrar. Professor R. N. Mishra participated as member of the selection committee constituted for the subject of Indian History. That selection has vitiated for this reason.
33. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to Section 58 of the Act, in his feeble attempt at salvaging the selection made in the subject of Indian History. Section 58 provides :-
“58.- No act or proceeding of any authority, committee or body of the University shall be invalid merely by reason of;
(a) any vacancy in or defect in the constitution thereof; or
(b) any defect in the election, nomination or appointment of a person acting as a member thereto; or
(c) any irregularity in its procedure not affecting the merits of the case.”
34. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision is not a solution for each and every illegality, irregularity and defect to be found with the actions or proceedings of the respondents. In the very nature of the provision, its operation has to be confined to bona fide mistakes of unsubstantial nature. Section 58 cannot be pressed into service for defending such actions as have been done deliberately or in utter disregard of express provisions of law. Section 58 does assist the respondents in upholding the resolution of the Academic Council dated 27-8-1992 with which we have already dealt with in paras 15 to 22 above. It does not legalise the proceedings of a selection committee which must consist of an expert under Section 49 of the Act, which expert shall not be ‘a person connected with the University in any manner whatsoever’. The provision has a laudable public purpose behind. The selection process, to be fair and impartial, must not be adulterated by the participation of ‘a person connected with the University in any manner whatsoever’. Breach of such a salutary provision cannot be condoned.
35. Professor R. N. Mishra being a person connected with the University, was incapable of being nominated in the selection committee and his presence in the selection committee has vitiated the very constitution thereof. The role of an expert in a selection committee is not an unnecessary, insignificant or ancillary role. The absence of an expert or the presence of a person as an expert whom the law restrains from functioning as such would vitiate the constitution of the selection committee itself rendering all its proceedings non est. The selection in so far as it relates to the subject of Indian History is vitiated and deserves to be struck down. It cannot be called a case of mere defect or irregularity in constitution of Committee or its proceedings.
36. There is a vague averment made in the petition that the selection committees were not allowed to function independently and had to work under pressure. No specific particulars are given. Singular document Annexure P/9 is relied on in support of the averment. One Professor J. P. Singh of Department of History from Shillong had participated in the selection committee in the subject of Ancient Indian History held on 9-9-1993. On 10-9-1993 he addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor and the Chancellor of the University stating inter alia – “I was persuaded and pressurised to put my signature to the recommendation”. Who persuaded and how pressurised and for what object is not mentioned. How and why did Shri J. P. Singh succumb to the persuasion and the pressure, is not stated in the letter Annexure P/9 nor in the petition. It is also not disclosed how the petitioner has secured copy of the letter (Annexure-P/9) though it was not addressed to him. Affidavit of Shri J. P. Singh is not filed with the petition. The averment has been denied in the return. The charge as to pressurisation is wholly devoid of any merit and to say the least deserves to be rejected without any further discussion,
37. We have also found no merit in the contention that the selections made in the month of September 1993 pursuant to the advertisement dated 1-7-1992 were vitiated on account of delay. It is true that the University Grants Commission has provided for process of selection being completed within a period of four months from the date of advertisement inviting applications for teaching posts. However, that limitation is recommendatory or directory and not mandatory in character. The object behind making the recommendation is to fill up the vacancies expeditiously so as not to leave them unfilled for a length of time which delay would naturally tell adversely on the studies. However, delay by itself would not vitiate the recruitments and appointments. The posts required to be filled were in different subjects. Convening the meeting of the Academic Council, constitution of selection committees, contacting the members thereof, securing their consent, appointing dates for interviews and informing the candidates do take time and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the delay which had taken place was so inordinate as to vitiate the selections otherwise valid and in order.
38. The learned Counsel for the respondents had raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability and hearing of the petition. It was submitted that the petitioner being not one of the persons aspiring for selection, did not have the locus standi in filing the petition. It was also submitted that the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy available by referring the dispute for decision of Kuladhipati under Section 55 of the Act and so the petition would not he We have found no merit in both the ‘contentions.
39. The petitioner is not just a busy-body. He is a member of the Court o1 the University commuted under Section 20 of the Act. The Court is the highest in the hierarchy of the authorities of the University As a member of the Court. it cannot be denied that he has a vital interest in seeing that the university functions consistently with the law governing it and its actions and proceedings are also held in conformity with the law. It cannot be said that he does not have the requisite interest entitling him filing of the petition Indeed, prior to the filing of the petition, he had also made a representation to the respondents inviting their attention to several contentions raised in the petition and seeking redressal.
40. We are also not satisfied that the petitioner had ‘any alternate efficacious remedy available to him Section 55 of the Act on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondents reads as under:- ‘
“55.- If any question arises regarding, the interpretation of any provisions, of this Act or of any Statute, Ordinance or Regulation or as to whether any person, has been duly elected, appointed as or us entiled. to be, a member of any authority, or other body of the University, the matter shall be referred to Kuladhipati whose decision thereon shall be final .
Provided that before taking any such decision the Kuladhipati shall give the person or persons affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Explanation I- In this section, the expression ‘body’s includes any committee constituted by or under the Act.
Explanation II- In this section the expression “appointed” does not include appointments to the salaried posts of the University.”
As the dispute relates to appointments to the salaried posts of the University. by virtue of Explanation II, such a dispute shall be out of the ken of section
41. For the foregoing reasons the petition is allowed partly. The advertisement. Annexure P/1 is upheld as valid. All the selections made pursuant thereto except in the subject of Indian History arc also upheld . The appointment of Professor R. N. Mishpa as an expert in the selection committee in the subject of Indian History and the selection made by that committee, are quashed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to the costs.