Dr. Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab

J.S. Khehar, J.—The petitioner claims to have joined Punjab Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as ''the PAU'') in 1965. In June

1997, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation after having rendered 32 long years of service. In view of his association with the PAU, he

claims to be deeply concerned with its activities. In furtherance of his aforesaid interest, the petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate direction to declare as illegal the

appointment of Dr. K.S. Aulakh as Vice Chancellor of the PAU.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while making appointment of Dr. K.S. Aulakh as Vice Chancellor of the

PAU, the prescribed procedure has not been followed. In the aforesaid context, reliance has been placed on Clause 2 of the statutes, wherein the

procedure for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor has been prescribed. The same is extracted hereunder :-

The following procedure shall be adopted for the appointment of Vice Chancellor :-

(a) The Boardmay either take up the matter on its own or elect a screening committee of three persons. The committee shall select its own

chairman. The committee may advertise and/or obtain suggestions from such other persons, institution and agencies as it may deem fit.

(b) On receipt of applications and/or suggestions mentioned in clause (a) above, the committee shall prepare a list of names of candidates for

scrutiny. On the basis of this list, the committee shall recommend at least three names to the Board in the order of preference unless the number of

eligible candidates is less than three.

(c) The Board may ask the Committee to consider additional prospects or engage in further deliberations.

(d) When a list has finally been accepted, the Board may arrange informal or formal interviews with one or more of the prospective appointees and

make the final selection as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act.

(e) Where the Board fails to appoint the Vice Chancellor in the manner prescribed in Section 15 of the Act within 2 months of the receipt of

intimation of the vacancy, the matter shall be reported to the Chancellor to enable him to make the appointment.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in terms of the mandate of Clause 2 of the Statutes, it is imperative to issue an advertisement

and solicit names of suitable candidates to man the office of Vice Chancellor. It is also imperative that at least names of 3 candidates should be

short-listed and the best amongst them is appointed after conducting a process of selection.

On a collective perusal of Clause 2 of the statutes extracted above, we are of the view that the Board is vested with the discretion to follow one

of two procedures. It may either lake upon itself to finalise the name of a candidate for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor. Alternatively,

it may delegate a part of the aforesaid deliberation to a screening committee. In case the latter alternative is chosen, it is open to the screening

committee to issue an advertisement for inviting names of suitable candidates. Whether or not any advertisement is issued, the Committee after its

deliberations is required to make its recommendations to the Board. The recommendations should include at least three names (unless the available

candidates are less than three). The list recommended by the screening committee is then to be examined by the Board which would take a final

decision. The procedure for appointment noticed above is to be adopted only if the Board requires the screening committee to assist it in the

process. The aforesaid procedure, however, is not envisaged if the Board adopts the other alternative, namely to take upon itself the issue of

appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor.

From the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is evident that the Board did not seek the assistance of the screening committee for finalising

the appointment of Dr. K.S. Aulakh, respondent No. 3, to the office of Vice Chancellor. If the Board takes upon itself the matter of appointment

of the Vice Chancellor, the question to be determined is, whether names shouldbe solicited by the Board through an advertisement and/or whether

at least three names should be shortlisted (unless the available candidates are less than three) and also whether a process of selection should be

conducted so as to finalise the best candidate out of those short-listed.

Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause 2 of the Statutes lay down the procedure to be followed in case the Board associates the screening committee

in finalising the names recommended for the office of Vice Chancellor. However, no procedure has been prescribed in the aforesaid statutes to be

followed by the Board in case the Board chooses to select the Vice Chancellor at its own level. The reason for not prescribing the procedure is not

far to fetch. The Board is the highest authority of the University. Its composition is evident from the proceedings of the meeting held on 25.1.2001,

where the name of respondent No. 3 was approved for the office of Vice Chancellor. The Board comprises of, inter alia, the Vice Chancellor of

the PAU, the Chief Secretary to Govt. Punjab, the Financial Commissioner (Development) & Secretary to Government Punjab Department of

Agricultural, the Principal Secretary to Govt. Punjab, Department of Finance, the Director of Agriculture Punjab, the Director of Animal

Husbandry Punjab, the Deputy Director General (AE), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, besides a member of Parliament and some public

figures. When such ahigh level authority like the Board is vested with responsibility to finalise the name of a candidate for appointment to the office

of Vice Chancellor, no procedure needs to be prescribed. It is for such a committee to determine its own procedure. By expressing the procedure

to be followed when candidates are to be recommended by the screening committee, and by not expressing any procedure when the matter in

respect of the appointment of the Vice Chancellor is considered by the Board, by itself impliedly vests in the Board the authority to determine its

own procedure. In view of the conclusion drawn above, we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Board was required to follow the procedure prescribed in Clause 2 of the Statutes which was not followed when the Board finalised the name of

respondent No. 3 for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor.

It is also not possible to accept that while taking the decision in respect of the appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor, the Board must

short-list a number of candidates and make selection out of the short-listed candidates. The constitution of the Board is indicative of the fact that

the members thereof have closeproxim-ity with the primary area of education which is being conducted at the PAU. By virtue of the offices held by

the various members of the Board, they would be conscious of prominent personalities in the field. With the association of members who hold high

offices like the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner (Development) & Secretary to Government Punjab,

Department of Agriculture as well as the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab Department of Finance, it would not be difficult to choose the

best amongst those available. Accordingly, we are of the view that a consensus of the Board in respect of one candidate itself cannot be

considered to be unfair and unreasonable.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before a matter is taken up by the Board for deliberation, it is incumbent to

circulate an agenda item in connection therewith. However, so far as the determination of the Board on the issue of ap-pointment of Vice

Chancellor is concerned, it is contended that no agenda item was circulated amongst the members for the meeting to be held on 25.1.2001. Since

the Board finalised the name of respondent No. 3 for appointment as Vice Chancellor of the PAU in the aforesaid meeting the same is

unacceptable in law. In our view, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner rests on an incorrect foundation. In the written

statement filed on behalf of the PAU through its Registrar, a communication dated 17.1.2001 has been annexed. A perusal of the same reveals that

agenda papers for the 192nd (Special) meeting of the Board to be held on 25.1.2001 was circulated to the members. The agenda item discloses

that the meeting would consider the resignation of Dr. Gurcha-ran Singh Kalkat, who had requested to be allowed to relinquish the charge of the

office of Vice Chancellor held by him on 31.3.2001 (despite the fact that his tenure was to continue till 12.4.2002). In addition to the issue relating

to the resignation of Dr. Gurcharan Singh Kalkat from the post of Vice Chancellor, the agenda item noticed as under :-

If the Board of Management decides to accede to the request of Dr. Gurcharan Singh Kalkat to relieve him from the duties of Vice-Chancellor,

Punjab Agricultural University, a vacancy is likely to be created in the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Punjab Agricultural University.

The vacancy, thus, occurring is to be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Haryana and Punjab

Agricultural Universities Act, 1970.

While noticing the aforesaid factual position, the procedure for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor was also detailed in the agenda

circulated amongst the Members of the Board. After a perusal of the aforesaid agenda, it is not possible for us to accept the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the meeting of the Board to beheld on 25.1.2001 was solely aimed at examining the resignation of Dr.

Gurcharan Singh Kalkat from the office of Vice Chancellor. In our view, the agenda item was expressly clear that in case the resignation of Dr.

Gurcharan Singh Kalkat from the office of Vice Chancellor was accepted, it would be open to the Board to consider the issue of appointment of

his successor. In the background of the aforesaid factual position, it is thus not possible for us to accept that the Board selected respondent No. 3

in its meeting held on 25.1.2001 without there being an agenda on the issue of appointment of Vice Chancellor.

It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in continuation of the submissions dealt with hereinabove that the authorities acted in

extreme haste in finalising the name of respondent No. 3 for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor. In this behalf, it is pointed out that the

Board should have first independently considered the resignation of Dr. Gurcharan Singh Kalkat from the office of Vice Chancellor and on

acceptance thereof, an independent meeting should have been held to consider the question of appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor. In

order to repel the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the respondent-University brought to our notice the provision of Section 15(4) of the

Punjab and Haryana Agricultural Universities Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The same is being extracted hereunder :-

When a vacancy occurs, or is likely to occur, in the office of the Vice Chancellor by reason of leave taken by the holder of such office or any

cause other than the expiry of the term of office, the Registrar shall report the fact forthwith to the Board, and such vacancy shall be filled in

accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1).

Additionally, sub-clause (e) of Clause 2 of the Statutes has also been brought to our notice. The same is also extracted hereunder :-

(e) Where the Board fails to appoint the Vice Chancellor in the manner prescribed in Section 15 of the Act within 2 months of the receipt of

intimation of the vacancy, the matter shall be reported to the Chancellor to enable him to make the appointment.

On a collective perusal of Section 15(4) of the Act as well as sub-clause (e) of Clause 2 of the Statutes, we are of the considered view that the

Board is vested with the responsibilities to fill up the office of Vice Chancellor within 2 months of the receipt of intimation of the vacancy. It is not

unreasonable to accept that the vacancy in the office of the Vice Chancellor became obvious when Dr. Gurcharan Singh Kalkat, the Vice

Chancellor, tendered his resignation on 23.10.2000 and again on 27.10.2000. It is evident from Section 15(4) of the Act that the process of filling

up a vacancy need not only commence on the arising of the vacancy but it can also commence when a vacancy ''is likely to occur''. After an over

all view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the Board was fully justified in deliberating on the issue of appointment of the Vice

Chancellor on 25.1.2001 during the course of its 192nd meeting.

Last of all, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the name of respondent No. 3 Dr. K.S. Aulakh had been finalised even before

the meeting of the Board was held on 25.1.2001. The only basis for arriving at the aforesaid conclusion projected during the course of arguments

is that two members of the Board did not participate in its proceedings despite the fact that they were present. In this behalf, it is pointed out that

Dr. Gurcharan Singh Kalkat, the then Vice Chancellor of the PAU and Dr. B.S. Dhillon left the committee room where the Board had assembled

to conduct its deliberations on 25.1.2001. In so far as the aforesaid assertion is concerned, it is considered appropriate/expedient to extract

hereunder the exact nature of the allegations made by the petitioner :-

...Dr. B.S. Dhillon also left the Committee Room at that stage alongwith Dr. G.S. Kalkat. There was no reason for Dr. Dhilton to leave the

Committee Room as such. He came out as he was asked to do so by Dr. G.S. Kalkat. In retrospect, it seems that this was a clever move. Dr.

G.S. Kalkat did not want Dr. B.S. Dhillon to remain in the meeting. It was anticipated that in the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Vice

Chancellor, Dr. B.S. Dhillon could possibly object inasmuch as that he would insist upon following the procedure laid down in the University

Statutes. In order to ensure that nothing of the kind happens, Dr. B.S. Dhillon was cleverly asked to come out of the meeting....

From the vague and general nature of the allegations made in the pleadings, it is riot possible to accept the conclusions drawn by the petitioner. To

say the least, it needs to be noticed that not a single word was uttered during the course of arguments in respect of the proficiency of respondent

No. 3 so far his field of specialisation is concerned. From the narration of facts in the pleadings, it is clear that respondent No. 3 has been a

member of teaching faculty of the PAU wherein he was Professor and Head of the department of Plant Pathology. Besides the aforesaid, he has

also held the post of Dean, College of Agriculture and Director of Research in the same University. At the time his name was considered by the

Board, he was holding the office of Pro Vice Chancellor. In the background of the aforesaid uncontroverted position, we find no justification in the

allegations levelled by the petitioner.

No other arguments were raised.

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.