JUDGMENT
B.S. Chauhan and Arun Tandon, JJ.
1. These two writ petitions have been filed by two lecturers of Sri Gandhi Post Graduate College, Maltali, Azamgah claiming a right to function as Officiating Principal of the institution till regular selected candidate recommended by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission joins the post. The claim set up in both the writ petitions is for the same post i.e. officiating principal. Both petitioners have challenged the same order of the Vice-Chancellor of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur dated 8th September, 2007. These two writ petitions have, therefore, been tagged and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri V.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for Paras Nath Chaubey, Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for Dr. Ghanshyam Singh, Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.
3. Sri Gandhi Post Graduate College, Maltali, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘college’) is a degree college affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’). The permanent Principle of tne college, Dr. Dwij Ram Yadav retired on 30th June, 2001. One Chandra Shekhar Ojha was handed over charge of the post of Principal on officiating basis between 1st July, 2001 to 30th January, 2004. Thereafter Dr. Jagdish Prasad Pandey, senior most teacher, was appointed as officiating principal. Dr. Jagdish Prasad Pandey attained the age of superannuation on 1st Janauary, 2007. He was, however, continued as Principal of the institution, even after he attained the age of superannuation. Feeling aggrieved by the said continuation, Paras Nath Chaubey, present petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20190 of 2007 (Paras Nath Chaubey v. State of U.P. and Ors.) which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2007, with a direction upon the Vice-Chancellor to consider the matter pertaining to the officiating appointment on the post of principal of the college in a time bound manner. Before the Vice Chancellor of the University could take a decision in the matter, Dr. Jagdish Prasad Pandey at the end of the academic session i.e. 20th June, 2007, handed over the charge of the post of officiating principal to Dr. Ghanshyam Singh on 1st July, 2007.
4. According to Paras Nath Chaubey, Dr. Ghanshyam Singh is junior to him and therefore, not entitled to work as officiating principal of the college in preference to Paras Nath Chaubey.
5. The Vice-Chancellor of the University, by means of order dated 8th September, 2007, has held that Parash Nath Chaubey is entitled to function as officiating principal of the college for a period of three months only.
6. Despite the order of Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Ghanshyam Singh did not hand over the charge of the post of officiating principal. This lead Paras Nath Chaubey to file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59709 of 2007 for quashing the order of Vice-Chancellor dated 8th September, 2007, insofar as it restricts his appointment (i.e. Paras Nath Chaubey), as officiating principal of the college for a period of three months only and with a further relief that respondents may be directed to permit Paras Nath Chaubey to continue as Officiating Principal of the college till regularly selected candidate recommended by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission joins the post.
7. Dr. Ghanshyam Singh has independently filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57894 of 2007 challenging the order of Vice-Chancellor of the University dated 8th September, 2007 whereby he has approved the appointment of Paras Nath Chaubey as officiating principal of the college for a period of three months only and with a further prayer that he (Dr. Ghanshyam Singh) should be permitted to continue as officiating principal of the college and be paid salary as and when it falls due.
8. Dr. Ghanshyam Singh contends that although he is junior to Paras Nath Chaubey, he is entitled to the appointment on the post of officiating principal in preference to Paras Nath Chaubey, who is not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as per the First Statutes of the University applicable for the post of principal of a Post Graduate Degree College. In absence of prescribed minimum qualification being possessed by Paras Nath Chaubey, he cannot be permitted to function as officiating principal even for a single day. Dr. Ghanshyam Singh therefore, contends that he being the next senior-most Lecturer in the institution possessed of minimum prescribed qualifications is entitled to the officiating appointment on the post of Principal in terms of the First Statutes of the University.
9. In reply, learned Counsel for Paras Nath Chaubey, submits that as per Statute 10.20, senior-most teacher of the college is entitled to be appointed as officiating principal till a regularly selected candidate joins and it is immaterial that such senior-most teacher is not possessed of the essential qualification prescribed for the post of regular Principal.
10. From the records of these two writ petitions, it is an admitted position between the parties that permanent vacancy on the post of Principal of the college has been caused because of retirement of the earlier principal. The dispute pertains to the officiating appointment on the post of Principal pending regular selection by the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission in accordance with U.P. Act No. 16 of 1980.
11. It is also admitted to the parties that Paras Nath Chaubey is senior to Dr. Ghanshyam Singh in the college. Officiating appointment on the post of Principal of the college pending regular selection is to be made in accordance with Statute 10.20 of the First Statutes of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, which reads as follows:
10-20 tc fdlh lEc) egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;Z dk in fjDr gks tk;] rc izcU/kra= fdlh v/;kid dks rhu ekl dh vof/k ds fy, ;k tc rd fdlh fu;fer izkpk;Z dh fu;qfDr u gks tk;] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] izkpk;Z ds :i esa LfkkukiUu ds :i esa dk;Z djus ds fy, fu;qfDr dj ldrk gS A ;fn rhu ekl dh vof/k dh lekfIr ij ;k mlds iwoZ dksbZ fu;fer izkpk;Z fu;qDr u fd;k ;k ,slk izkpk;Z viuk in xzg.k u djsa rks egkfo|ky; dk T;s”Bre v/;kid ,sls egkfo|ky; ds ikzpk;Z ds :i esa rc rd LFkkukiUu :i esa dk;Z djsxk tc rd fd dksbZ fu;fer izkpk;Z fu;qDr u dj fn;k tk; A
From the aforesaid provisions, it is apparently clear that initially for a period of three months, the Management of the institution has been conferred a right to appoint any teacher as officiating principal. In case regular principal is not appointed even during this period of three months, the Management is obliged to hand over the charge of the office of Principal on officiating basis to the senior-most lecturer of the degree college.
12. The issue up for consideration before this Court is as to whether for such officiating appointment be it for a limited period of three months or for a period subsequent to three months, till the regular selected candidate recommended by the UP. Higher Education Services Commission joins the post, is it necessary that the teacher/lecturer concerned should be possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as provided under the Statutes applicable to the post of Principal or not.
13. Although the said Statute 10.20 does not refer to any such condition, however, we must record that appointment on various posts under the University have to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and Statutes applicable as a whole and no provision is to be read in isolation.
14. Section 49(e) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 provides for Statutes being framed for laying down the minimum qualification for various posts and reads as follows:
49. Statutes….
(e) the recruitment (including minimum qualifications and experience) and their emoluments and other conditions of service (including provisions relating to compulsory retirement) of persons appointed to other posts under the University;
Section 49(e) provides that essential qualifications for recruitment of persons to be appointed on a post under the University may be laid down by the Statutes. In exercise of power under Section 49(e), the First Statutes of the University contained in Part-II, lays down the prescribed minimum qualifications for appointment on the post of Principal in various degree colleges affiliated to the University, so far as the Post Graduate Degree Colleges are concerned. The minimum essential qualifications have been provided for under Statute 14.14 sub-statute (2), which reads as follows:
14-14 fdlh egkfo|ky; dh n’kk] tks fo’ofo|ky; ls lEc) gks] izkpk;Z ds in ds fy, U;wure vgZrk;sa fuEufyf[kr gksxh&&
LukrdksRrj egkfo|ky; ds fy,&&
¼d½ egkfo|ky;ksa esa izk/;kfir fdlh fo”k; esa izFke Js.kh ;k mPp f}rh; Js.kh esa ¼vFkkZr vadks ds iw.kZ;ksx ds 54 izfr’kr ls vf/kd vadks lfgr½ LukrdksRrj mikf/k ;k ml fo”k; esa fdlh fons’kh fo’ofo|ky; dh led{k mikf/k lfgr vfofPNUu mRre ‘kSf{k.kd vfHkys[k vFkkZr vH;FkhZ ds f’k{kk dky esa vk|ksikUr lHkh ewY;kaduks dk lEiw.kZ vfHkys[k vkSj
¼[k½ egkfo|ky; esa izk/;kfir fdlh ,d fo”k; esa MkDVjsV dh mikf/k vkSj LukrdksRrj d{kkvks ds v/;kiu dk 7 o”kZ dk vuqHko ;k fdlh mikf/k egkfo|ky; esa izkpk;Z ds in dk 5 o”kZ dk vuqHko&
ijUrq ;fn fdlh vH;FkhZ ds LukrdksRrj d{kkvks ds v/;kiu dk 10 o”kZ dk vuqHko ;k fdlh mikf/k d{kkvks ds v/;kiu dk 20 o”kZ dk ;k mlls vf/kd dk vuqHko ;k fdlh egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;Z ds in dk 7 o”kZ dk vuqHko gS ;k fdlh LukrdksRrj egkfo|ky; dk 5 o”kZ ;k mlls vf/kd le; ls LFkkbZ izkpk;Z gS ;k jgk gS] rks p;u lfefr MkDVjsV dh mikf/k dh mis{kk dks f’kfFky dj ldrh gS&&
ijUrq ;g vkSj fd ;fn p;u lfefr dk ;g fopkj gks fd fdlh vH;FkhZ dk vqula/kku dk;Z tSlk fd tks mlds ‘kks/k fucU/k ;k mldh izdkf’kr jpuk ls lqLi”V gks] vR;f/kd mPpLrj dk gS] rks og mi[k.M ¼d½ esa fofgr fdlh vgZrk dks f’kfFky dj ldrh gS A
In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, we have no hesitation to record that no person can be appointed on the post of Principal in an affiliated degree college, unless he is possessed of the prescribed minimum qualifications on the post in question. The appointment may be officiating/ad-hoc or regular. Possession of the minimum essential qualifications for the post prescribed by Statutes is a condition precedent for any valid appointment. It is immaterial that appointment is regular or officiating as contemplated by Statute 10.20. A person not possessed of the prescribed minimum essential qualification cannot be appointed on the post of Principal in any capacity whatsoever. The conclusion so drawn by us is supported by the following judgements:
(a) Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh v. Director of Hihger Education, Allahabad and Ors. reported in 1997 2 A.W.C. 2.214 (NOC) i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25259 of 1992 decided on 16th December, 1996, wherein with regard to the issue of appointment on ad-hoc lecturers in degree colleges affiliated to Purvanchal University, has held that even for ad-hoc appointment, essential minimum qualifications prescribed have necessary to be possessed by the candidate concerned, otherwise the appointment would be void in view of the provisions of the Commission Act, 1980. We may clarify that although Section-15 has been deleted but the legal principal stated therein qua officiating/ad-hoc appointment apply with full force.
(b) Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shamshul Zama v. District Inspector of Schools, Chandauli and Ors. reported in (2001) 3 UPLBEC 218 wherein with regard to the appointment on the post of Officiating Principal in an intermediate college governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982, same principal has been stated.
Even otherwise it does appeal to this Court that a person not possessed of the prescribed qualification can be permitted to discharge the duties on the post of Principal of the institution, even if for a period of three months. We therefore record that a lecturer of degree college not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification as provided for under the Statutory Provisions of the First Statutes of the University cannot be appointed as officiating principal under Statute 10.20 of the First Statutes of the University.
15. In this legal background it is to be examined as to whether Paras Nath Chaubey is possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification or not with reference to Statute 14.14(2) of the First Statutes of the University. It is admitted on record that Paras Nath Chaubey does not satisfy the requirement of Clause-Ka and Clause-Kha of the aforesaid First Statutes, inasmuch as he does not have minimum 54% marks at graduate level nor he has good academic record. He also does not satisfy the requirement of Clause-Kha as he is not possessed of a degree of Doctorate. Proviso to the aforesaid Statutes, however, provides that the essential minimum qualification can be relaxed in a given set of facts.
16. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate on behalf of Paras Nath Chaubey submits that since the Vice-Chancellor of the University has approved the appointment of Paras Nath Chaubey for a period of three months, it is to be presumed that he has relaxed the requirement of essential qualifications as per the proviso to the aforesaid Statute 10.20. He therefore, submits that the appointment of Paras Nath Chaubey cannot be said to be illegal and it cannot be said that Paras Nath Chaubey is not possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification, senior-most teacher, he is entitled to continue on the post of Officiating Principal till the regular selected candidate recommended by the U.P. Higher Education Services Selection Commission joins the post.
17. The contention so raised by Sri Ashok Khare is opposed by Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel for Dr. Ghanshyam Singh on following two grounds:
(a) Proviso to Statute 10.20 will have no application, so far as the ad-hoc/officiating appointments are concerned, inasmuch as power to grant relaxation is with the Selection Committee to be constituted for regular appointment. So far as the officiating appointment is concerned, no Selection Committee is required to be constituted and therefore, in terms of the provisions, no other person has any right to grant relaxation from the essential qualifications,
(b) there is no order in writing of the Vice-Chancellor of the University granting relaxation in favour of Paras Nath Chaubey from the essential qualifications.
18. After haring the parties on the aforesaid issue, we are of the considered opinion that the issue as to whether relaxation from the essential qualifications can be granted in respect of officiating appointment on the post of Principal in terms of proviso to Statute 10.20 has not at all been examined by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. We may further record that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of of India in the case of Nagendra Singh Chauhan v. Hemwati Nandan Behguna University, Sri Nagar and Ors. reported in 1998 1 ESC 767 has held that relaxation from the essential qualifications prescribed under the Statutes can be granted by the Selection Committee only under a specific order in writing supported by reasons.
19. From the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, it is apparently clear that there are no reasons recorded qua the issue of prescribed minimum qualification or relaxation thereto in favour of Paras Nath Chaubey. The Vice-Chancellor of the University has misdirected himself in recording that for a period of three months Paras Nath Chaubey can be permitted to continue as Officiating Principal of the college, even if he is not possessed of the degree of B.Ed. The reason so recorded is based on complete misreading of Statute 14.14(2) of the First Statutes of the University framed under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
20. In the totality of the circumstances, as noticed herein above, we have no hesitation to record that the order of Vice-Chancellor of the University dated 8th September, 2007 is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly.
21. Let the Vice-Chancellor of the University re-examine the dispute between the parties qua officiating appointment on the post of Principal of the college in terms of the observations made by us herein above afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.
22. With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the writ petition No. 59709 of 2007 and writ petition No. 57894 of 2007 are disposed of finally.