Anupam Vashista vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—Petitioner Anupam Vashista, resident of House No. 503/7, Urban Estate, Gurgaon has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against Guru Jambheshwar University, respondent No. 1, its Vice-Chancellor, respondent No. 2, its Chancellor, respondent No, 3 and Sh. Dharamvir, IAS. currently working as Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Haryana, respondent No. 4, and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issues quashing the order dated 10.12.1999 Annexure P15 vide which respondent No. 3 has withdrawn the appointment letter issued to the petitioner who was selected and appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Business Management in pursuance of the post advertised vide advertisement dated 27/28.4.1999, Annexure Pi, and consequently his selection and appointment has been annulled erroneously and against all the principles of natural justice. It has also been prayed that the report on the basis of which the appointment of the petitioner was annulled is wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary. The petitioner has further made a prayer for the quashment of the decision dated 21.1.1999 taken by the Executive Council and also the alleged report of the Sub Committee while taking its decision dated 21.1.1999. It has been further prayed by the petitioner that directions be given to respondents No. 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to join as Lecturer in the Department of Business Management in the respondent No. 1 University as a consequence of his section and appointment made vide letter dated 11.8.1998, Annexure P8.

The case set-up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was established by an Act of Haryana legislature to promote studies and research in the emerging areas of higher education with special focus on new frontiers of technology, pharmacy, environmental studies, non-conventional energic sources, management studies and other areas of science and technology. On 27/28.4.1998 the respondent-University advertised some posts of Lecturers, Professors, Readers etc. vide advertisement Annexure P1. These posts were duty sanctioned and created by the University in accordance with the provisions of 1995 Act with the approval /sanction of State Government. These were regular vacant posts available with the University. The advertisement simply sought applications without listing any specialisation. The qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Business Management was as under :-

"QUALIFICATION & EXPERIENCE FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT :

"Ph.D. or Fellows of IIMs ICA, ICWA or Master''s Degree plus professional experience of 2 years.

Specialization, - Quantitative

Techniques/Operations, Research/Production

Management/Computer Applications."

The petitioner is M.A. (Economics) and M.B.A. and has professional experience of 3 years and- ?. months. After his M.A, (Economics) he worked with Capital Farms & Estates Pvt. Ltd. from 17.2.1993 to 16.4.1995 as Manager Finance. He joined R.R. Finance Consultants Ltd. as Research Analyst. He has vast professional experience and specialisation i.e. quantitative techniques, operations research/production/management/computer applications. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Business Management and appeared before the interview Committee duly constituted comprising of members mentioned in para 7 of the present writ petition. The petitioner was selected to the post advertised. The Selection Committee was duly constituted as per the Act of the University. There was no technical defect in the constitution of the Committee nor was anything wrong when the selections were made by the Selection Committee. On 11.8.1998 the Selection Committee sub- milted its recommendations which were considered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 11.8.1998 and the appointment letter Annexure P8 was issued to the petitioner on 13.8.1998. On 13.8.1998 itself the petitioner received a telegram from the University stating therein that the offer of appointment has been stayed till further orders as per Government instructions dated 12.8.1998. The only reason given by the Government is that the University was making unnecessary appointments and was making appointments ignoring the qualifications while making these selections and further directed not to allow all those persons who had been issued appointment letters to join unless the justification for appointment has been examined on merits. On 13.5.1999 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that he did not possess the relevant professional experience of 2 years in the prescribed specialisations as held by a committee appointed by the Executive Council. The petitioner submitted the reply on 20.5.1999 in which he also sought personal hearing which was granted to him on 29.7.1999. On 29.7.1999 the petitioner also raised number of issues inter-alia stating that he was fully qualified to be appointed on the post in (sic) not. There was a natural bias in the mind of the new Vice Chancellor, who wanted to see that the process of selection earlier done by the Executive Council must be annulled. Further, in short, the case of the petitioner is that he had the requisite experience and qualifications; he acquired skills while in active service in the corporate sector and, therefore, the decision of the University in withdrawing the appointment letter smacks of extraneous considerations. This order is on account of the non-application of mind and is perverse and thus is liable to be quashed.

The notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and it was pleaded by these respondents that no fundamental or other vested legal right of the petitioner has been infringed in any manner. According to them, in the month of April, 1998, 66 leaching posts were advertised. The last date of receiving the applications was 8.6.1998. After receipt of the applications and scrutiny of the same, interviews were held for the appointments on 39 teaching posts from 1.8.1998 to 8.8.1998. On the basis of interviews, the Selection Committee recommended candidates including the petitioner for appointment on 21 teaching posts. The selections of the petitioner and other candidates as recommended by the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 11.8.1998 and the petitioner and others were issued appointment letters on the same day. The selection of the petitioner along with others and their subsequent appointments as teachers was dogged by various controversies listed below:-

"(a) While releasing grants as well as sanctioning posts, the Government of Haryana i.e. respondent No. 1 have been emphasising that the appoints in the University must be only need-based in view of the financial constraints. After the advertisement No. 1/98 was issued by the University, the State Govt. vide their letter dated 19.6.98, had cautioned the university that in view of the conditions imposed by them (State Government) while creating posts for various teaching departments of the University and the recommendations made by the UGC visiting committee according to which various departments were to be merged, and to effect economy in expenditure, only those posts be filled up which arc of immediate necessity and for which there was strong justification.

(b) Even the approval of the recommendations of the Selection Committee by the Executive Council has not been less-controversial.

(c) Even when the appointment letters to the selected candidates were purported to be issued on 11.8.98, the Registrar, who is also the Secretary of the Executive Council had made a suggestion for examining the qualification etc. of the selected candidates in view of the letter of the Director, Higher Education, Haryana dated 5.5.1998 (Annexure R/3).

It was then pleaded that the State Government vide letter dated 12.8.1998 addressed to the Universities in the State, imposed ban on the filling of teaching/non-teaching posts. The Government observed that the Universities are making some unnecessary appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff in contravention of their instructions from time to time. It was also brought to their notice that the qualifications for teaching posts are also being ignored in some cases while making selections. With that object the Government issued instructions that those appointments may be stayed and the person concerned should not be allowed to join unless the justification for appointment has been examined on merit. In this view a telegram was issued to the University that offer of appointment be stayed. Thereafter a meeting of the Executive Council took place on 12.11.1998 and on the objections of the Director, Higher Education ii was decided to constitute a committee of Vice-Chancellor of the University, Financial Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department, Haryana or his nominee, Commissioner & Secretary, Technical Education Department, Haryana, Dean, Academic Affairs, Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar and Registrar of the University to examine the appointments made against the teaching as well as non-teaching posts including appointment of the petitioner. The said Sub-Committee, appointed by the Executive Council, examined in detail the eligibility of the selected candidates, their qualifications, the qualifications prescribed by the University and found that a large number of selections suffered from one short-coming or the other. In several cases the qualifications prescribed were vague and had not been fixed keeping in view the requirements of the courses/departments. In some cases the selection process and interview were hurried through and some ineligible candidates have also been selected. The Sub-Committee observed that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were silent about the spe- cialisations against which the candidates were selected and even the departments had not been identified as to how many teachers were needed for different specialisations, The Sub-Committee examined in detail all the selections/appointments approved by the Executive Council in its meeting on 11.8.1998 and had made its recommendations. In this view of the matter, the Sub-Committee recommended that the posts be re-advertised and the candidates, who were selected add appointed, could also apply, if they fulfil the qualifications. The Sub-Committee also formulated the opinion that the appointment letters were issued in a hurry. The report of the Sub-Committee was placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 21.1.1999 and the recommendations of the sub-committee were approved by the Executive Council. The Sub-Committee did not find the selection of the petitioner in order for the reasons given in the report and it was decided to re-advertise the post. It was pleaded that as per statute 20(4) of the Guru Jambheshwar University Act, 1995, if the Executive Council is unable to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit a proposal to the Chancellor for final orders. Accordingly, the University referred the matter to the Chancellor for his orders. It is also pleaded by these respondents that posts in the University can only be created with the approval of the State Government which is the major funding agency and provides huge funds in the shape of grant-in-aid. The State Government had imposed a ban which was justified. The order of the Government does not cause infringement of any right of the Executive Council of the University. The Chancellor gave personal hearing to the petitioner on 29.7.1999 where he asserted that he was fully qualified for the post and that he was entitled to join the post. The Chancellor directed the University to obtain opinion of the subject expert, legal expert and give their comments. The comments of experts wee obtained and on the basis of the conclusions, the selected candidates were not declared eligible by the Sub-Committee. The view of the Sub-Committee was approved by the Chancellor. The so-called experience of the petitioner was not up to the mark. Thus the petitioner was not eligible for the post under reference. Moreover, the qualifications of the petitioner were vague and unclear. The candidates with better qualifications of Statistics, MCA etc. were available, who are much better in the field. Thus the stand of these respondents is that though the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee and the recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved by the Executive Council but the Executive Council itself fell in doubt. It appointed a Sub-Committee which did not approve the earlier decision of the Executive Council and finally the Executive Council itself disagreed with the recommendations of the Selection Committee and referred the matter to the Chancellor, who adopted the principles of natural justice when the petitioner was heard. His qualifications were scanned through and it was finally noticed that the petitioner''s selection was not on merits. Therefore, the appointment letter of the petitioner was withdrawn.

A separate written statement was filed by respondent No. 3. The case of this respondent was also at par with that of respondents No. 1 and 2. Similarly, respondent No. 4 filed a separate written statement. He also justified the action of the respondent-University.

In support of his case the petitioner has placed on record certain documents, reference of which is given below:-

Annexure Pl is the advertisement. Annexures P2 and P3 are experience certificates. Annexures P4 and P5 are the brochures of M/s R.R. Consultants Ltd. Annexure P6 is the D.M.Cs. of the petitioner. Annexure P7 is the letter of interview. Annexure P8 is appointment letter dated 11.8.1998. Annexure P9 is telegram sent to the petitioner by the University. Annexure P10 is a letter from Government of Haryana to the Vice Chancellor of the University, dated 12.8.1998, vide which the University was directed that all proposals for making appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts should be got cleared from the State Govt. after giving justifications for filling up the posts as per instructions earlier issued by the State Govt. Annexure P11 is the show cause notice which was issued by Chancellor to the petitioner. Annexure P12 is reply to the show cause notice. Annexure P13 is a letter issued by the Undersecretary vide which the petitioner was informed that he has been given an opportunity for personal hearing. Annexure P14 is the supplementary to the show cause notice and Annexure P15 is the order vide which the appointment letter issued to the petitioner was withdrawn and this order is under challenge before this Court.

The respondents have also filed certain documents. Annexure R1 is the minutes of meeting of Executive Council dated 13.8.1998. Annexures R2 and R3 are the letters from Director of Higher Education. Haryana, Chandigarh in the name of the Registrar, Guru Jambheshwar University, Annexure R4 is office noting and Annexure R5 is letter dated 22.9.1998. Annexure R6 is the copy of telegram vide which the operation of letter dated 11.8.1998 was stayed.

I have heard Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

In this case two points arise for determination (i) once the recommendations of the Selection Committee have been approved by the Executive Council and those have been acted upon by the University itself with the issuance of the appointment letter to the petitioner, whether the appointment letter of the petitioner can be withdrawn, if so, under what circumstances; (ii) whether the procedure adopted by the respondents before passing of the order Annexure P15 is legal, if not, to what effect. The case of the petitioner is very simple. According to him he possessed the requisite quaiifica- tion. He submitted the application form. His qualifications were scrutinized. He was called for interview and he appeared before the Selection Committee, which was properly constituted. The Selection Committee was competent to hold an interview. The petitioner was interviewed. The Selection Committee made recommendations after being fully satisfied about the academic qualifications, experience and the merits of the petitioner. According to the Regulations of the University, the Selection Committee was supposed to submit its recommendations to the Executive Council and the Executive Council at that point of lime might or might not accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee and once the Executive Council has accepted the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it was not open to the Executive Council again to withdraw its order unless it is established that the Selection Committee or the Executive Council was acting without jurisdiction. It is also the case of the petitioner that if the Executive Council was unable to accept the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, it could record its reasons and submit the case to the Chancellor for the final orders. Also it is the case of the petitioner that in this case the Executive Council constituted a Sub Committee and in that Sub Committee Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the University were added as members. They were not the members when earlier the Executive Council approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee. They have biased the mind of the Chancellor as they were adamant not to approve the earlier decision of the Executive Council when it approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee and, therefore, the order passed by the Chancellor is visited with bias and it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

On the contrary, the stand of the respondents is that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were not binding upon the Executive Council. The Executive Council though at one stage approved the suggestions or recommendations of the Selection Committee but the Executive Council itself was in doubt when it received many complaints. It constituted a Sub Committee which independently examined the merits and demerits of each candidate. The Sub Committee gave its report which was again approved by the Executive Council. Subsequently, the Executive Council did not approve the recommendations of the Sub Committee. The matter was referred to the Chancellor of the university as per me provisions of Statute 20(4). The Chancellor complied with the principles of natural justice when the show cause notice was given to the petitioner, who filed his reply. He was personally heard. Even the supplementary reply was given by the petitioner and after considering all the pros and cons of the case the appointment letter was withdrawn and the order Annexure P15 was passed. Meeting the stand of the respondents it was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that here is a case of clear discrimination between the petitioner and others. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 11.8.1998. The local residents namely Neeraj Dilbagi and Sanjay Singh joined the department on 11.8.1998 and their appointments were not touched. Since the petitioner hailed from Gurgaon, he could not receive the appointment letter on 11.8.1998, therefore, in this case a telegram was sent that the operation of the appointment letter dated 11.8.1998 has been stayed.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and in my opinion this writ petition must succeed. I do not dispute the power of the respondent-authorities to review or reconsider the matter, but this power is limited. If the respondent-authorities are in a position to say that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications. Moment it is proved on the record that the petitioner had the requisite qualifications for the post, he did not conceal any fact from the respondent-authorities and that the Selection Committee approved the qualifications and experience of the petitioner and made the recommendations which were approved by the Executive Council, the process of selection is complete. In the present case not only the process of selection is complete but it was further acted upon when the appointment letter Annexure P8 was issued to the petitioner on 11.8.1998. After the issuance of appointment letter it is not open to the Executive Council to constitute a Sub Committee nor such Sub Committee could upset the decision of the Executive Council earlier taken vide which the recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved. If the Government has raised any ban to the appointment on the posts, that is an internal decision of the Government with the University. The posts were on the cadre of the department. Due process of selection was completed. The application form of the petitioner clearly indicates that he earlier worked as Manager in M/s Capital Farm & Estate Pvt. Ltd. He also worked as Research Analyst (Manager) in M/s. R.R. Financial Consultant Ltd. from 22.5.1997 till the date of his submitting the application. The said two firms issued requisite experience certificates Annexures P2 and P3 to the petitioner. The essential experience for the post applied was professional experience of two years in quantitative techniques/operations research/production management/computer applications. The certificates Annexures P2 and P3 leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner had the requisite experience and this aspect of the case must have been examined by the Selection Committee at the time of the interview of the petitioner. If the Selection Committee with open mind has approved the experience and qualifications of the petitioner, who was M.A. (Economics) and M.B.A.. it is not open for the respondents now to say that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications or experience. Annexure P8 is the appointment letter which clearly spells out that on the recommendations of the Selection Committee and with the approval of the Executive Council the appointment letter was issued. The following wording in para No. 2 of the appointment letter Annexure P8 requires emphasis :-

"On the recommendations of the Selection Committee and with the approval of the Executive Coun- cil meeting held on 11.8.1998 vide its Resolution No. 16, you arc hereby, offered the post of Lecturer at a basic salary of Rs. 2200/- in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-100-4000/-".

It is not the case of the respondents that the Selection Committee, which conducted the interview of the petitioner, was not a legally constituted Selection Committee. The Executive Council never disapproved the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Therefore, there was no necessity to refer the mailer to the Chancellor nor the Executive Council had the competency to appoint a Sub Committee which could sit over the earlier decision of the Executive Council which approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The entire process of the constituting a Sub Committee in which the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar were added was a wrong procedure. It is true that the report of the Sub Committee was again put up before the Executive Council but this time Chancellor and Registrar were the members of the Sub Committee. They were not the members of the Executive Council when the recommendations of the Selection Committee were approved. In these circumstances a serious prejudice must have been caused to the petitioner. It is true that the Chancellor gave notice to the petitioner before the passing the impugned order Annexure P15 but this process is also bad. The finding of this court is that once the Executive Council approves the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the process of the selection is complete. Once appointment letter is issued to the petitioner, it cannot be withdrawn unless it is established that the Selection Committee or the Executive Council had no inherent jurisdiction in the selection or approval. It has been observed in Jagdish Singh and another v. Director General of Police Haryana, and others 1997(1) SCT 200 : 1996 (4) RSJ 805 that once the appointment letter has been issued and all the formalities have been completed and a person has been selected, there is no option with the respondents but to appoint the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon State of Punjab and others v. Suman Lata 1999 S C C 1065, wherein it was held that the authorities need not interfere in selection made by the competent committee if the selectee fulfils the qualifications and those qualifications and experience have been examined by the Selection Committee which consisted of person having sufficient experience in the field and knowledge of the job requirements. However, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon a band of authorities which are discussed as follows ; The first judgment is The District Collector & Chairman Vizianagaram (Social Welfare Residential School Society) Vizianagaram anil anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990(4) SLR 237, where it was observed that if a selectee does not possess the requisite qualifications and has been selected by mistake and if such defect comes to the notice of the appointing authority while scrutinizing the original certificates at the time of the joining duties, such selectee cannot be permitted to resume duty and the action of the authority is good. This judgment is distinguishable on facts. Firstly, I have held that the petitioner had the requisite qualifications and experience. He gave his qualifications and experience in the application form. Those were scrutinised not only by the processing agency but also by the Selection Committee which consisted the members who had vast experience. They were experts in their fields. 11 members of the Selection Committee were there. There was no defect in the certificates of the petitioner. Now the respondent University wants to withdraw the appointment letter mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not a requisite qualifications and experience as per the advertisement. This aspect of the case was examined twice firstly by the office at the time of processing, secondly by the Selection Committee and third opportunity was with the Executive Council which at one point of time approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee. There was no difference of opinion at that time amongst the Selection Committee and the Executive Council. The difference arose abruptly when the Director, Health Services felt insulted that he had been discarded in the matter of approval. The entire conduct of the authority which was not satisfied with the approval of the Executive Council requires condemnation. It was highly inequitable on the part of the University firstly to constitute a Sub Committee, secondly to incorporate two members such as Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar who did not participate in the meeting of the Executive Council when the recommendations were approved. It appears that different considerations prevailed and the members of the Executive Council succumbed to the pressure of certain authorities and they upset its own decision without any valid basis. They have reviewed its earlier decision of the approval when there was no patent illegality in their decision while approving the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Reliance was also placed on Union of India Vs. Shri Rati Pal Saroj and Another, , Dr. Kumar Bar Das v. Utkal University and others 1999 (1) SCT 289 : 1999 (1) SCC 458, Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others and Heckett Engineering Co. Vs. Their Workmen, (sub note (D)]. In my opinion, the entire case law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is misplaced and has no relevancy. We have to go by regulations and if regulations are correctly interpreted, it would mean that selection has to be made by a Selection Committee. The recommendations of the Selection Committee have to go to the Executive Council. If Executive Council approved those recommendations, it is the end of the matter. No further decision of any authority is required in the finalisation of the selection provided the Executive Council has the jurisdiction. There was a valid quorum. The member of the Selection Committee and the Executive Council were members of experience and qualifications in their fields. They scrutinised the document of the petitioner. They were satisfied with the performance of the petitioner. There was no difference of opinion between the Selection Committee and the Executive Council. Once the Executive Council puts a seal and gives the approval, finality takes place, Of course, Executive Council could act suo motu if their earlier approval was without jurisdiction or there was a patent illegality either in its own decision or in the decision of the Selection Committee. There was none. Fight of egoism took place. Since the process of selection was to be toppled it was toppled in a very poor shape. Sub Committee was constituted for no valid reason. It was against the statute itself. In the Sub Committee two members were associated which should not have been associated. The Sub Committee took the assistance of legal experts which action is again bad. The Sub Committee''s recommendations were approved without giving any finding that earlier approval was without jurisdiction or those were patently erroneous. A dead horse was flogged when dissenting view was sent to the Chancellor at a highly belated stage. This action was also without jurisdiction. It is true that the Chancellor adopted the principles of natural justice but his action could not revive a horse which was already declared dead.

In this view of the matter. I am of the opinion that the decision dated 21.1.1999 of the Executive Council and also the alleged report of the Sub Committee which was relied upon and accepted by the Executive Council is bad and stand quashed. I further hold that the order dated 10.12.1999, Annexure P15, vide which respondent No. 3 withdrew the appointment letter of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Business Management in pursuance of the posts advertised vide Annexure P1 is bad and, without jurisdiction and stands quashed. I further quash there-port/comments of the expert, which was relied upon by respondent No. 3 before issuance of the order An-nexureP15. Directions are given to respondents No. 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to join as Lecturer in the Department of Business Management in respondent No. 1 University as a consequence of his selection and appointment vide letter dated 11.8.1998 on the basis of his merit in terms of his experience and qualifications. The petitioner shall be allowed to join the duty within 8 days immediately on receipt of the copy of this judgment. It may, however, be clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages/arrears and his seniority shall also be governed from the date of this joining in the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.