{"id":199935,"date":"1998-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998"},"modified":"2017-06-13T11:00:48","modified_gmt":"2017-06-13T05:30:48","slug":"yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998","title":{"rendered":"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, D.P. Wadhwa<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  365-370 of 1994\n\nPETITIONER:\nYOGENDRA SINGH RAWAT AND ORS. ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/02\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS. SAGHIR AHMAD & D.P. WADHWA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1998 (1) SCR 685<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. Special leave
\ngranted. The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court of
\nJudicature at Allahabad praying that they be granted substantive
\nappointments as lecturers in the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University
\n(for short ‘the University’) in terms of the Uttar Pradesh State University
\n(Second Amendment) Ordinance (No. 44 of 1991) which was latter passed as
\nAct No. 1 of 1992 by the U.P. Legislature called the U.P. State
\nUniversities (Amendment) Act, 1992 (for short, the ‘amending Act’) . The
\namending Act amended the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the
\n‘Principal Act’). A Division Bench of the High Court, however, did not find
\nany merit in the writ petitions and dismissed the same by judgment dated
\nAugust 20, 1993. Aggrieved, the appellants have come to this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Originally there were eight appellants. Appellants Y.S. Rawat, G.P. Sharma
\nand J.P. Madhwal are stated to be no longer interested in pursuing their
\nappeals. The appellants before us are now Dr. L.P. Lakhera, Shri R.S. Negi,
\nDr. M. S. Sati, Shri Ajay Pal Singh and Dr. Surendra Joshi.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Universities Act provides that where
\nany matter is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same
\ncannot be immediately dealt with by any officer or authority or any other
\nbody of the University empowered by or under the Universities Act then to
\ndeal with that situation the Vice-Chancellor may take action as he may deem
\nfit. He shall thereafter forthwith report the action taken by him to the
\nChancellor and also to the officer, authority or other body who or which in
\nthe ordinary course would have dealt with the matter. Under sub-section (8)
\nof Section 13 where exercise of power by the Vice Chancellor under sub-
\nsection (6) involved the appointment of an officer or a teacher of the
\nUniversity, such appointment shall terminate on the appointment being made
\nin the prescribed manner or on the expiration of a period of six months
\nfrom the date of the order of the Vice-Chancellor, whichever is earlier.
\nThat would mean that the appointment of a lecturer made by the Vice-
\nChancellor could not last for more than six months. Section 31 of the
\nUniversities Act provides for the appointment of teachers of the
\nUniversity. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that the teachers of the
\nUniversity shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the
\nrecommendations of a Selection Committee in the manner laid down in that
\nSection. Sub-section (10) of Section 31 provides that no selection for any
\nappointment shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at
\nleast three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in the
\nState of Uttar Pradesh. Section 49 deals with Statutes and clause (d) lays
\ndown that the Statutes may provide for the classification and recruitment
\n(including minimum qualifications and experience) of the teachers of the
\nUniversity. As to what are the qualifications prescribed for a lecturer by
\nrelevant Statutes of the University, it will be appropriate to refer to the
\nOrdinance which was subsequently replaced by Act No. 1 of 1992. Sub-section
\n(2) of Section 1 of this amending Act provided that this Act shall be
\ndeemed to have come into force on November 22, 1991. Sections 2 and 3 of
\nthis Act amending the Principal Act, that is the University Act, are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“2. In Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh State University Act, 1973, as
\namended and re-enacted by the Uttar Pradesh University (Re-enactment and
\nAmendment) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  in sub-section (6), after the words “where any matter” in words “other
\nthan the appointment of teacher of the University” shall be inserted.\n<\/p>\n
(b) in sub-section, the words “or a teacher of the University” shall be
\nomitted.\n<\/p>\n
3. In Section 31 of the Principal Act:-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  in sub-section (1) words “The selection committee shall meet as often
\nas necessary” shall be inserted at the end:-\n<\/p>\n
(b)  in sub-section (3) after clause (b) and the provisions thereto, the
\nfollowing clause shall be inserted, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(c) any teacher of the Universities who was appointed as lecturer on or
\nbefore June 30, 1991 without reference to the Selection Committee by way of
\na short term arrangement in accordance with the provisions for the time
\nbeing in force for such appointment may be given substantive appointment,
\nby the Executive Council, if, any substantive vacancy of the same cadre and
\ngrade in the same department is available on November 22, 1991 if such
\nteacher: –\n<\/p>\n
(I) is serving as such on November 22, 1991 continuously since such initial
\nappointment by way of short term arrangement;\n<\/p>\n
(II) possessed on November 22, 1991 the qualification required for regular
\nappointment to the post under the provisions of the relevant statutes in
\nforce on the date of the initial appointment;\n<\/p>\n
(III) has been found suitable for regular appointment by the Executive
\nCouncil.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the controversy before the High Court was as to what would be
\nthe qualifications for a lecturer for the amending Act to be applicable.
\nWhile the appellants contended that the qualifications would be those as
\nexiting when the amending Act came into force, the stand of the University
\nwas that the qualifications would be as on the date of the initial
\nappointment of the appellants. The High Court held that the qualification
\nwould be those as existing when the initial appointment under Section 13(6)
\nof the Principal Act were made and not when the amending Act came into
\nforce and that is November 22, 1991. As to what were the qualifications
\nprescribed for lecturer on the dates when respective appointments came
\nthrough, we may refer to the relevant Statutes 11.01 of the University.
\nFirst time the qualifications and appointments of teachers in university
\nwas prescribed on June 25, 1978. The statute was amended in the year 1980
\nand subsequently as under :\n<\/p>\n
“QUALIFICATIONS AND APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS IN THE UNIVERSITY<\/p>\n
11.01 (i) In the case of the Faculties of Arts, Commerce and Science, the
\nfollowing shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in
\nthe University, namely-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  a doctorate in the subject of study concerned or a published work of a
\nhigh standard in that subject; and<\/p>\n
(b) consistently good academic record (that is to say, the overall record
\nof all assessments throughout the academic career of a candidate), with
\nfirst class or high second class (that is to say, with an aggregate of more
\nthan 54 per cent marks) Master’s degree in the subject concerned or
\nequivalent degree of a foreign University in such subject.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Where the Selection Committee is of opinion that the research work of
\na candidate, as evidenced either by his thesis or by his published work, is
\nof a very high standard, it may relax any of the requirements specified in
\nsub-clause (b) of Clause (1).\n<\/p>\n
(3) If a candidate possessing a qualification prescribed in sub-clause (a)
\nof Clause (1) is not available or is not considered suitable a person
\npossessing a consistently good academic record (due weightage being given
\nto M. Phil, or equivalent degree or research work of quality) may be
\nappointed on the condition that he will attain the prescribed qualification
\n(namely doctorate or published work as aforesaid) within five years from
\nthe date of his appointment :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that where the teacher so appointed fails to attain the prescribed
\nqualification within the said period of five years, he shall not be
\nentitled to yearly increments after such period, until he attains such
\nqualifications.\n<\/p>\n
(4)…….\n<\/p>\n
11.01 (l)(b) : Consistently good academic record with first or high second
\nclass Master’s degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in a
\nrelevant subject.”\n<\/p>\n
Sub-clause (a) of Clause (7) of Statute 11.01 provided that marks above the
\nmid-point between the minimum percentage of marks fixed by the University
\nfor award of first and second divisions are said to be high second class
\nmarks. In exercise of power under Section (1) read with Section 15 of U.P.
\nState University Act, 1973, read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh
\nGeneral Clauses Act, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, amended the first
\nStatute of the University called the 25th Amendment. This was made on March
\n25, 1989. For existing Statute 11.01 the following was substituted.\n<\/p>\n
” 11.01 (1) in the case of Faculty of Arts (except the Departments of
\nMusic, Drawing and Painting), and the faculties of Commerce and Science the
\nminimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the University shall
\nbe Master’s degree or an equivalent Degree or a foreign University in the
\nrelevant subject with at least 55 per cent marks or its equivalent grade
\nand consistently good academic record.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In the case of Faculty of Education, the minimum qualifications for the
\npost of a Lecturer in the University shall be Master’s degree or an
\nequivalent degree of a foreign University in Education (that is an M. Ed.
\ndegree) with at least 55 per cent marks or its equivalent grade and
\nconsistently good academic record.\n<\/p>\n
(3)………….\n<\/p>\n
(4)…………..\n<\/p>\n
(5) For the purpose of this Statute :-\n<\/p>\n
(a) A candidate (other than a candidate for Lecturership in the Faculties
\nof Education and Law) having obtained either 55 per cent marks in
\nBachelor’s degree examination and second class in Intermediate examination
\nor 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately is said to
\nhave consistently good academic record;\n<\/p>\n
(b) A candidate for Lecturership in the Faculty of Education having
\nobtained either 55 per cent marks in B.Ed. degree examination and second
\nclass in any other Bachelor’s degree examination or 50 per cent marks in
\neach of the two examinations separately, is said to have consistently good
\nacademic record:\n<\/p>\n
(c)………………\n<\/p>\n
(6) For appointment to the post of Lecturer only those candidates shall be
\neligible who, besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualifications
\nprescribed for the post of Lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive
\ntest, if any, to be conducted as per scheme of University Grants
\nCommission.”\n<\/p>\n
This Statute 11.01 was further amended on 31.12.1990 which is known as 26th
\nAmendment. In sub-clause (6) of the First Statute of 1978 as amended in
\nMarch, 1989, following proviso was inserted :\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that a candidate:-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  Who has passed University Grants Commission or Council of Scientific
\nand Industrial Research or Junior (Research Fellowship Examination; (or).\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Who has already been awarded Ph. D. or M. Phil Degree; or<\/p>\n
(3) Who will be awarded M. Phil degree upto December, 1990 or Ph. D. degree
\nupto December, 1992 shall not be required to qualify in such a
\ncomprehensive test. ”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the effect of the amending Act amending the Principal Act and by
\ninsertion of clause (c) to sub-section (3) of Section 31 would be that any
\nlecturer who was appointed without reference to the Selection Committee
\nunder sub-section (6) of Section 13 would be given substantive appointment
\non the conditions that (i) a substantive vacancy was available on November
\n22, 1991; (2) his appointment was on or before June 30, 1991 and was
\nserving as such on November 22, 1991 continuously since his initial
\nappointment; (3) he continued to possess qualification as prescribed under
\nrelevant provisions of the statutes at the time of initial appointment on
\nNovember 22, 1991; and that (4) he has been found suitable for regular
\nappointment by the Executive Council of the University.\n<\/p>\n
It will also be seen that before March 1989 for appointment as a lecturer,
\nit was necessary that a person should possess a Doctorate degree in the
\nsubject and consistently have good academic record. However, before this
\ndate if no candidate having Doctorate degree was available but the
\nSelection Committee was of the opinion that the research and thesis work
\npublished by a candidate was of a very high standard it may relax any such
\nrequirement of possessing a Doctorate degree. After May 25, 1989 entire
\nstatute 11.01 was substituted and now a candidate must possess good
\nacademic record that is he should have obtained either 55 per cent marks in
\nBachelor Degree Examination, and Second Class in Intermediate Examination
\nor 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately subject of
\ncourse his possessing consistently good academic record. Apart from
\npossessing good academic record under sub-section (6) it is necessary for a
\ncandidate to have passed the qualifying comprehensive test conducted by the
\nUniversity Grants Commission. But then he is exempted from that test if he
\nhad already been awarded Ph.D. and M.Phil degree or who would be awarded
\nM.Phil degree upto December 1990 or Ph.D. degree upto December 1992.\n<\/p>\n
In University of Delhi v. Raj Singh & Ors.,<\/a> [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 516, the
\nquestion before this Court was if the University Grants Commission
\n(Qualifications Required of a person to be Appointed to the Teaching Staff
\nof a University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 were
\nvalid and mandatory and if so was the Delhi University obliged under law to
\ncomply therewith. This Court gave the answer in affirmative. It referred to
\nEntries 63 and 66 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of
\nIndia and to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
\nvis-a-vis Delhi University Act, 1922. The University Grants Commission Act
\nwas enacted under the provisions of Entry 6 of List I of the Seventh
\nSchedule. It entitled Parliament to legislate in respect of “coordination
\nand determination of standards in institutions for higher education or
\nresearch and scientific and technical institutions.” This Court observed
\nthat Entry 66 of List I give power to the Union to see that the required
\nstandard of higher education in the country was maintained. It was the
\nexclusive responsibility of the Central Government to coordinate and
\ndetermine the standards of higher education. The Court then observed that
\nsuch powers would comprehend the power to require those who possess the
\neducational qualifications required for holding the post of lecturer in
\nUniversities and colleges to appear for a written test, the passing of
\nwhich would establish that they possess the minimal proficiency for holding
\nsuch post. That, however, would not mean the University cannot prescribe
\nqualifications over and above those prescribed by the University Grants
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
In University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary & Ors., [1996] 10 SCC
\n536, this Court considered the recommendations of the University Grants
\nCommission made in 1991 prescribing minimum qualification for the post of
\nLecturers in the Universities and Colleges which were amended by Circulars
\ndated 10.2.1993 and 15.6.1993. The recommendations in the Regulations of
\n1991 and the two circulars as quoted in the judgment are as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Good academic record with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at
\nMaster’s level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an
\nequivalent degree from a foreign University. Candidates besides fulfilling
\nthe above qualifications should have cleared the eligibility test for
\nlecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.\n<\/p>\n
By circular dated 10.2.1993 the UGC granted exemption from appearing in the
\neligibility test to the following categories:\n<\/p>\n
1.  All candidates who have passed UGC\/CSIR J.R.F. Examination.\n<\/p>\n
2.  All candidates who have already been awarded Ph.D degree.\n<\/p>\n
3.  All candidates who have already been awarded M.Phil, degree up to
\n31.3.1991.\n<\/p>\n
4.  All candidates who will submit their Ph.D thesis up to 31.12.1993.\n<\/p>\n
By Circular dated 15.6.1993 in respect of candidates falling in category
\n(3) exemption from appearing in the eligibility test was extended to
\ncandidates who had been awarded M.Phil, degree up to 31.12.1992.\n<\/p>\n
By a notification dated 21.6.1995, the 1991 Regulations have been amended
\nand the following proviso has been added below the requirement regarding
\nclearing the eligibility test for appointment on the post of Lecturer :\n<\/p>\n
“Provided that candidates who have submitted Ph. D. thesis or passed the
\nM.Phil examination by 31.12.1993 are exempted from the eligibility test for
\nlecturers conducted by UGC, CISR or similar test accredited by the UGC.”\n<\/p>\n
Since the Executive Committee of the University made recommendations in
\n1992 Statute 11.01 as amended by 26th amendment would apply in the cases of
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
By letter dated July 5\/17.6.1992 University informed the appellants that
\nthey were not found fit to be regularised on the post of lecturers. The
\nletter is to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
“Sub: Regularisation of ad hoc lecturers Sir,<\/p>\n
As per the conditions mentioned in Ordinance No. 44 dated 22\/ 11\/91 the
\nmatter regarding the regularisation of all the ad hoc lecturers was put for
\nconsideration before the Executive Council on 22\/4\/1992. The Executive
\nCouncil after having considered your application for regularisation
\nseriously, did not find you fit to be regularised on the post of lecturer.
\nWe regret for the same. For your information you could not qualify the
\nfollowing conditions :\n<\/p>\n
Recommendation                      :            No\n\nReason                                    :            Not qualified\n\nWere not working on 30\/6\/1991.\n\nSd\/Dy. Registrar (Admn.) For Registrar.\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
It has been rightly held by the High Court that artificial break in service
\ncannot be taken into account while considering the question that any of the
\nappellants was not working continuously as on November 22, 1991 from the
\ndate of his initial appointment on or before June 30, 1991. High Court has
\nalso held that opportunity was given to the appellants when the Executive
\nCommittee considered their cases. Taking into account the relevant statutes
\nof the University, the High Court was of the view that if any one of the
\nappellants had already been awarded Ph. D. or M. Phil, degree or will be
\nawarded M. Phil degree upto December 1990 or Ph. D. degree upto December
\n1992 he would be qualified for the post of lecturer. Thereafter the High
\nCourt addressed itself to the question if the appellants who had been given
\nshort term ad hoc appointments were entitled to substantive appointments.
\nIt noted that procedure for making appointments were that the vacancy had
\nto be advertised in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the
\nAct and in absence of the advertisement there would be violation of Article
\n16 of the Constitution and any such appointments would be rendered illegal.
\nThe Executive Committee could make appointment only on the basis of the
\nrecommendations made by the Selection Committee. The High Court then
\nobserved as under :\n<\/p>\n
“All the adhoc lecturers whose cases were considered by the Assessment
\nCommittee on March 7, 1992 and by the Executive Council on April 22, 1992
\nwere given ad hoc appointments without following the rules namely without
\nadvertisement of vacancy and without having faced selection committee. They
\nare claiming the benefit of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1992 in order to get a
\nsubstantive appointment and as a corollary they must satisfy the
\nrequirement of the said Act and if the requirement of the Act is that they
\nshould possess prescribed qualification for regular appointment under the
\nrelevant Statutes, they must do so. The fact that at some earlier stage the
\nUniversity made an advertisement in which wrong or lesser qualification was
\nmentioned is wholly irrelevant and that advertisement cannot override the
\nrequirement of the amending Act. It has been consistently held that a
\nperson not possessing prescribed qualification cannot be appointed in a
\nUniversity or in an affiliated college and if such a person is appointed,
\nthe appointment itself becomes illegal.”\n<\/p>\n
High Court then concluded that it was clearly of the opinion that in order
\nto get the benefit of the Act 1 of 1992 amending the Principal Act the ad
\nhoc lecturers must possess the qualifications required for regular
\nappointment under the provisions of the relevant statutes as laid down in
\nsub-section (ii) of clause (c) of Section 31 of the Act. High Court said
\nthat the qualifications prescribed prior to the amendment would not get
\nrevived. High Court did not rely on Single Judge decision of that court in
\nWrit Petition No. 25255 of 1992 Dr. Siya Ram Singh v. Director Higher
\nEducation, where benefit of regularisation had been given to ad hoc
\nlecturers of the affiliated colleges under Ordinance No. 43 of 1991 which
\nwas also promulgated on November 22, 1991 with similar provisions as in the
\npresent case. In that case the initial ad hoc appointment itself having
\nbeen held to be illegal, regularisation had been refused by the
\nauthorities. It was also found that the petitioners therein did not possess
\nthe prescribed qualifications. As to the reasoning of the learned single
\nJudge, the High Court not only distinguished that judgment but rather
\ndisapproved the same. It also noticed that in the case before the learned
\nSingle Judge the question was appointment to the affiliated colleges of the
\nUniversity while in the present case appointment was in University itself
\nwhich was governed by separate enactment. The High Court then examined the
\nindividual cases of the appellants and found that they did not possess the
\nrequisite qualifications and further that their cases had been considered
\nby the Executive Committee who did not find them suitable to be given
\nregular appointments. The High Court, therefore, by judgment dated August
\n20, 1993 dismissed the writ petitions holding that these lacked merit and
\nvacated the interim orders passed in favour of the appellants. When the
\nmatter came to this Court in special leave petitions while granting leave
\nstay was declined.\n<\/p>\n
Keeping the aforesaid parameters in view, we may now consider the cases of
\neach of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. L.P. Lakhera as found by the High Court was appointed as a part-time
\nlecturer on 16.8.1990 for two months. His appointment, however, continued
\nupto 30.4.91. He was given fresh appointment on 14.10.91. He was,
\ntherefore, not working on 30.6.91. It could not be said that break in
\nservice from 30.4.91 to 14.10.91 for almost six months was an artificial
\nbreak in his service not to be taken into account. In Intermediate and B.A.
\nexaminations he got 45.3% and 45.5% marks respectively. His claim that he
\ndid work from 1.4.91 to 13.10.91 without pay due to financial constraints
\nin the Univsersity is not acceptable. Moreover no vacancy in the post of
\nlecturer in Geography was available on 22.11.91. His claim for substantive
\nappointment could not be recommended. His having obtained a Degree of
\nDoctor of Philosophy in 1990 did not advance his case for his getting
\nsubstantive appointment.\n<\/p>\n
Shri R.S. Negi was appointed on 2.11.91 as found by the High Court and he
\nwas not working as such on 30.6.91. In his affidavit filed in these
\nproceedings he submitted a certificate of the Registrar of the University
\nstating that R.S. Negi had submitted his thesis on 2.11.94 and he was
\nawarded degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geology in the year 1996. At the
\nrelevant time no post of lecturer in his subject was available. Negi,
\ntherefore, could not fulfil that qualifications prescribed and was not
\nrecommended for substantive appointment.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. M.S. Sati was appointed as part-time lecturer on 8.11. 1990 for two
\nmonths and his appointment came to an end on 8.1.91. He was given fresh
\nappointment as part-time lecturer for two months on 14.2.91 which ended on
\n14.4.91. He was thereafter appointed on regular basis for six months on
\n11.9.91. In his affidavit filed in this Court Dr. Sati submitted a
\ncertificate from the Registrar of the University certifying that he had
\nsubmitted his thesis in Geology on 3.9.94. He was awarded degree of Doctor
\nof Philosophy in 1996. Assuming that there was an artificial break in his
\nservice Dr. Sati had neither qualified in the comprehensive test of the UGC
\nnor was he awarded M.Phil degree in December 1990 or Ph. D. degree in
\nDecember 1992. He obtained 45% marks in the Intermediate examination and
\n60% in B. Sc. examination. Since he did not fulfil the qualifications
\nprescribed his name was not recommended for substantive appointment.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Ajay Pal Singh was appointed as lecturer on 2.11.91. Earlier he had
\nbeen appointed on 7.9.88 for a period of two months. In his affidavit filed
\nin this Court he stated that he submitted his thesis for D. Phil in 1993
\nand was awarded D. Phil degree in 1993. In support of his claim that he had
\nsubmitted his thesis he has not filed any certificate from the Registrar of
\nthe University. He obtained 48% marks in Intermediate and 52.8% in B.A.
\nexamination. No post in his subject was also available on 2.11.91. Since
\nSri Singh did not fulfil the certeria for substantive appointment his case
\nwas not recommended.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Surendra Joshi was appointed as part-time lecturer on 13.8.90 for two
\nmonths, which appointment continued upto 25.7.91. He was given fresh
\nappointment on 15.6.91 which continued until 25.7.91. After about nearly
\none and a half months Dr. Joshi was again appointed on 11.9.91 and that
\nappointment continued upto 11.3.92. In his case it could be said that he
\nwas working continuously from 30.6.91 till the date of the commencement of
\nthe Ordinance. In Bachelor’s degree Dr. Joshi passed in third division
\nthough Intermediate in the second division. He obtained degree in D. Phil
\nin 1988. As he did not fulfil the criteria he was not recommended for
\nsubstantive appointment by the Executive Committee.\n<\/p>\n
We are therefore of the view that the High Court was right in coming to the
\nconclusion that the appellants did not satisfy the requisite qualifications
\nor the criteria as laid for their appointment as lecturers in the
\nUniversity. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Executive
\nCommittee of the University not recommending the appellants for substantive
\nappointment as lecturers in the University. These appeals, therefore, fail
\nand are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998 Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, D.P. Wadhwa CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 365-370 of 1994 PETITIONER: YOGENDRA SINGH RAWAT AND ORS. ETC. RESPONDENT: HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/02\/1998 BENCH: S. SAGHIR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nYogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 5 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 5 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1998-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-13T05:30:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T05:30:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4093,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\",\"name\":\"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 5 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T05:30:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 5 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 5 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-13T05:30:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998","datePublished":"1998-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T05:30:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998"},"wordCount":4093,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998","name":"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal ... on 5 February, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T05:30:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yogendra-singh-rawat-and-ors-etc-vs-hemwati-nandan-bahuguna-garhwal-on-5-february-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yogendra Singh Rawat And Ors. Etc vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal … on 5 February, 1998"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199935\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}