Dr. B.S. Sidhu vs The Punjab Agricultural University and Others

K.P. Bhandari, J.—The petitioner is in the service of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (hearinafter referred to as ''the University''). He has done his Ph. D. in Agronomy from the University. He has 23 years'' research experience to his credit. Out of this, his 18 years''experience is in the sugarcane crop.

The petitioner started his career in the University in January, 1959, as Research Assistant, Later in March, 1971, be was appointed Assistant Sugarcane Physiologist in the University. In February, 1978 he was made Assistant Agronomist. In March, 1983, he was promoted as Agronomist. Even as Agronomist, the petitioner has been closely associated with the Inter Cropping Studies of Mentba in Sugarcane since 1984 85. Latter on, when tame studies wore shifted to Sugarcane Research Station, Jalandhar, in the year 1936, the petitioner continued to remain associated with them. He was associated With the research work of this crop along with the Director, Sugarcane Resarch Station, Jalandhar.

Dr. R. S. Kanwar, Director, Punjab Agricultural University, Sugarcane Research Station, Jalandhar, in his certificate dated October 16, 1986, issued to the petitioner, recorded as follows :-

"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that Dr. B. S Sidhu, Agronomist, working in the department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. was associated in Sugarcane research and extension education work -for more than 15 years. During this period Dr. Sidhu was associated with research work relating to the testing and selection of sugarcane varieties and Agronomic research His most significant contribution to sugarcane research was the improvement in cane germination due to seed treatment with organo-mercurial fungicides and chemical weed control. These research findings were included in the package of practices and have proved very helpful in improving yield and sugarcane crop in Punjab Dr Sidhu is an excellent field worker and has been taking active part in the extension education work in different sugarfactory areas of the State. He is hard working and dependable Agronomist."

The certificate issued by the Director, Sugarcane Research Station, Jalandhar, c early shows that the petitioner has made significant contribution in the reasearch of Sugarcane. The reasearch findings of the petitioner have been included in the package of practices approved for the Sugarcane and have proved very helpful in improving this industry in Punjab.

The University issued an advertisement calling for applications for the post of Senior Scientist in Sugarcane. According to the advertisement, the following qualifications were laid down :-

Essential Qualifications:-

(i) Second Class B. Sc,/B Sc. (Agriculture);

(ii) Ph. D in Plant Breeding/Agronomy;

(iii) 12 years'' experience in tecahing/research/extension education preferably in sugarcane crop.

Desirable : Administrative experience.

The petitioner fulfilled these qualifications laid down in the advertisement. He applied for the pest of Senior Scientist Sugarcane.

According to Statute 4(3)(ii) of the Universify, the Vice Chancellor is empowered to constitute a Selection Committee. The Selection Committee consisted of the following members :-

Dr. R. P. Paroda, Deputy Director General, (Crop Science), (ICAR), New Delhi.

(Chairman)

Dr. Kishan Singh, Director, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow.

(Expert)

Dr. K. S. Nandpuri, Director (Research).

(Member)

Dr. K. S. Gill, Director (Extension)

(Member)

Dr. B S. Dhillon, Dean, Post Graduate Studies.

(Member)

Dr S. S. Dev, Dean, College of Agriculture.

(Member)

Dr. R. S. Kanwar, Additional Director (Research)

(Member)

Dr. K. S. Labana, Head of the Department of Plant Breeding.

(Member)

7 The Selection Committee was Chaired by Dr. R P. Paroda, Deputy Director General (Crop Science), (ICAR), New Delhi. The Committee included Dr. Kishan Singh, Director, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow.

A perusal of the composition of the Selection Committee would show that it consisted of eminent persons in the research work of sugarcane Several candidates applied for the post The petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee. Out of the candidates interviewed, the Committee found the petitioner to be most suitable and recommend his name for appointment as Senior Scientist Sugarcane. The Committee did not consider any other candidate suitable for appoitment. According to the provisions of the statute 4(3)(viii)of the University, the Vice Chancellor, on the receipt of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, has to recommend a single name for appointment to the post. If the Vice Chancellor recommends the candidate other than the one recommended by the Selection Committee, he has to state his reasons.

The recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Vice Chancellor were placed before the Administrative Committee. The Administrative Committee did not aprove the appointment of the petitioner and requested the Vice Chancellor to readvertise the post. The Administrative Committee further expressed the view that at least three eminent experts from outside the State should be members of the Selection Committee. Thereafter the Board of Management of the University vide its decision dated August 19, 1988 (Annexure P-7) decided that, instead of read verging the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane, all the (sic) candidates who were examined by the previous Selection Committee, be re examined by an ad hoc powerful Committee with three outside experts to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor of the University.

The order of the Board of Management reads as follows :-

"Item No. 20 : Appointment to the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane in the scale of 1,500 2,500.

The Board of Management considered the recommendations of the Administrative Committee and decided that instead of readvertising the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane, all the 13 candidates, which were examined by the previous Selection Committee, be re-examined by an ad hoc powerful Committee with three outside experts, to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor, Punjab Agricultural University."

The petitioner has taken the stand in the writ petition that Shri Manohar Singh Gill, I.A.S, the then Financial Commissioner (Development) and Additional Chief Secretary, Punjab Government, respondent No. 3, who was member of the Board of Management, was (sic) disposed towards the petitioner. He . dominated the proceedings of the Administrative Committee as well as of the Beard of Management. Nothing could be found against the petitioner, but still ha persuaded the Administrative Committee that the post be readvertised. The petitioner has challenged in the writ petition that according to the Statutes of the University, the Administrative Committee cannot consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Vice Chancellor. It is the Board of Management alone which is entitled to consider the recommendations. It is averted in the writ petition that the proceedings of the Administrative Committee ate wholly illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction It is further averred that the petitioner was dully qualified and fulfilled the qualifications for the post. Selection Committee which consisted of two eminent Sugarcane Experts, found only the petitioner suitable for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane The Vice Chancellor also agreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. However, due to illegal intervention of the Administrative Committee which was dominated by Shri Man char Singh Gill, respondent No. 3, the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved. The Board of Management has illegally ordered that the candidates be reinterviewed by ad-hoc Committee which should consist of three outside experts.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the University by Dr. Sukhdev Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University. The facts stated in the writ petition have been substantially admitted. It is, however, averred that the authority to appoint a candidate as a Senior Scientist Sugarcane is vested with the Board of Management of the University. The Board of Management has not approved the selection of the petitioner and, therefore, he has no right to file the present writ petition. The University has also relied on the written statement on a representation made by Shri D. S. Virk, Senior Millets Breeder, Department of Plant Breeding, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane.

Written statement has also been filed by Shri Manohar Singh Gill, I.A.S, the then Financial Commissioner (Development) and Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Punjab, respondent No. 3. la the written statement he has justified his recommendation for advertising the post. He has denied the allegation of mala fide levelled against him.

The petitioner has filed a replication to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also filed another replication to the written statement filed by Shri Manohar Singh Gill, respondent No. 3. The petitioner has substantially denied the stand taken in the written statements and has reiterated the stand taken in the writ petition.

Shri R S. Mongia, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that the power to constitute the Selection Committee, according to the Statute of the University, is vested in the Vice Chancellor. He has further drawn my attention to the fact that the Selection Committee consisted of two eminent Scientists namely Dr R. P. Paroda. Deputy Director General (Crop Science), (ICAR), New Delhi, who chaired the proceedings of the Selection Committee and Dr. Kishan Singh, Director, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow. He further submitted that the Selection Committee found that the petitioner was the only candidate who was suitable for appointment to the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane. The Vice Chancellor also agreed with the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Shri Mongia strongly contended that there is no provision in the Statute of the University which may empower the Administrative Committee to review the a recommendations of the Selection Committee. The Administrative Committee has not bees vested with any power according to the Statute of the University in this behalf He further contended that a perusal of the proceedings of the Board of Management dated August 19, 1988 (Annexure P-7) shows that the Board has not disclosed any reason whatsoever for not approving the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Vice Chancellor, The Board of Management has ordered reintetviev of all the candidates by another Selection Committee. Shri Mongia contended that there is no provision in the Statute of the University which empowers the Board of Management that the candidates to reinter viewed by another Selection Committee, The Board of Management exceeded its jurisdiction, power or authority to older reinterview of the candidates.

Shri J. S. Khehar, counsel appearing for the University, strongly contended that the consideration of the case by the Administration Committee is the internal matter of the University. For smooth working of the Board of Management, the Administiative Committee looks into the matter. It is fun her contended by Shri Khehar that the Board of Management has not approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Vies Chancellor and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to file the present writ petition.

I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the counsel for the parties at the Bar.

In the Schema of our Constitution Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution find a unique position It is only in the Indian Constitution that we find a provision which guarantees equal opportunity to every citizen in the matter of employment and appointment in the State. This right has been made fundamental right by the framers of the Constitution by including it in Chapter III of the Constitution In order to ensure equal opportunity, methods are devised to constitute independent Selection Committees to consider the merits of the candidates.

In the present case, admittedly the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications and experiences for the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane. He also had considerably rich experience of Sugarcane. The Selection Committee found him suitable for the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane and recommended his appointment in accordance with the Statute of the University. The Vice Chancellor also agreed with the recommendation of tie Selection Committee. However, the Administrative Committee in which Shri Manohar Singh Gill played the preminent part, recommended that the post of advertised again. The functions of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor and the Board of Management are set out in Statute 4(3) of the Statutes of the University. These Statutes are contained in Chapter IV of the Brochure published by the University. The relevant provisions of the Statute read as under:-

"Statute 4(3) :

4(1) xx xx xx xx.

(2) xx xx xx xx.

(3) The procedure for the appointment of professors end other teachers of the equivalent ranks, when vacancies arise or when the new posts are created shall be as under :-

(i) xx xx xx xx.

(ii) xx xx xx xx.

(iii) xx xx xx xx.

(iv) xx xx xx xx.

(v) xx xx xx xx

(vi) After interviewing the candidates or considering them in absentia, as the case may be, the Committee shall recommend to the Vice Chancellor, as far as possible at least three persons in order of preference.

(vii) After receiving the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor may, if he considers it necessary, request the Committee to consider additional names or to review or reconsider its recommendations We may also, if he considers it necessary, himself interview persons recommended by the Committee and/or others whom he considers to be suitable.

(viii) The Vice Chancllor shall then submit a single recommendation for the approval of the Board of Management. Where the Vice Chancellor finds it necessary to recommend a person other than the person/persons, recommended by the Selection Committee, be shall state his reasons for doing so.

(ix) If the Board does not approve the recommendation, the Vice Chancellor shall in due course submit another recommendation.

A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Statute would show that the Administrative Committee is not empowered to consider the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Vice Chancel or. The Administrative Committee bad no jurisdiction, power or authority to pronounce upon the selection of the petitioner who was duly selected by a powerful Selection Committee which consisted of two eminent experts. The Administrative Committee bas not been able to point out that the petitioner did not fulfil the qualifications which were advertised for the post The Administrative Committee had no jurisdiction power or authority to ask for readvertisement of the post or constitution, of another Selection Committee the power to constitute the Selection Committee exclusively vested under the Statute in the Vice Chancellor. So I have no manner of doubt from the perusal of the provisions of the statute of the University that the action of the Administrative Committee in considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Vice Chancellor is wholly illegal, ultra vires, without jurisdiction and should be treated as completely non est.

As regards the proceedings of the Board of Management, the Board was also influenced by the recommendations of the Administrative Committee. The recommendations of the Administrative Committee were, immaterial, completely extraneous and irrelevant and should not have been taken into consideration by the Board of Management. Under the influence of the recommendations of the Administrative Committee, the Board of Management bad ordered that the past be not readvertised but all the 13 candidates should be reinterviewed by an ad hoc Committee with three outside experts. A perusal of the Statutes of the University would show that there is no provision for reinterview of the candidates. The candidates were interviewed by a duly constituted Selection Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor. This Committee consisted of two well-known experts, namely, Dr. R. P. Paroda, Deputy Director General, (Crop Science), (ICAR), New Delhi and Dr. Kishan Singh, Director, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow The Selection Committee found that the petitioner fulfilled the qualifications for the post of the Senior Scientist Sugarcane. The Committee recommended only the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post. The Vice Chancellor also agreed with the recommendations.

A candidate who is duly selected by the Selection Committee is entitled to be appointed because he has made a grade in pursuance of the equal opportunity granted to him under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. A. candidate who has made a grade in the interview and is found fie for appointment, cannot be denined the appointment merely because some outside agency thinks that the post should be readvertised. There is no procedure known to law that the candidate who has been interviewed by a duly constituted Selection Committee should be reinterviewed. This procedure is also not envisaged in the provisions of the Statute of the University and, therefore, tin Board of Management acted wholly illegally and without any authority of law in ordering that the candidates be reinterviewed by an ad hoc Committee. As a matter of fact, the power to constitute a Selection Committee is vested in the Vice Chancellor. The Board of Management does not come into picture for this purpose. The Board of Management acted illegally in ordering that the candidates be reinterviewed by another Selection Committee.

The order of the Board of Management dated August 19,1988 (Annexure P-7) has given no reason whatsoever for not appointing the petitioner who was duly recommended for appointment as Senior Scientist Sugarcane by the Selection Committee. The Board of Management cm refuse to appoint a candidate if they find the candidate does not fulfil the qualifications or his past antecedents are such that he is not a fit person to be appointed.

In Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, 1984 (3) S. L. R. 389. the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the question that, if the posts are available and suitable persons are also available can the Government refuse to appoint the persons. The Supreme Court observed as follows :-

"The Government of Haryana has taken the stand that they were unable to select and appoint more candidates as the names of only a few candidates were sent to them by the Public Service Commission. It now transpires that even before the Public Service Commission sent its truncated list to the Government, the High Court bad already informed the Government that there were more vacancies which required to be filled. The Government not knowing that the names of several candidates who were qualified had been withheld from the Government by the Service Commission, wrote to the Service Commission to hold a fresh competitive examination. If the Government bad been aware that there were qualified candidates available, they would have surely applied Rule 8 of part D and made the necessary selection to be communicated to the High Court. The net result is that qualified candidates, though available, were not selected and were not appointed. Miss Neelima. Shangla is one of them In the view that we have taken of the rules, Miss Neelima Shangla is entitled to be selected for appointment as Subordinate Judge in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) Branch By an interim order of this Court, one post of Subordinate Judge has beer kept vacant for her.

We direct the first respondent (Government of Haryana) to include the name of the petitioner (Miss Neelima Shangla) in the 1984 list of candidates selected for appointment as Subordinate Judges in ths Haryana Judicial Service (Judicial Branch) and forward the sane to the High Court of Punjab and Havana for inclusion in the High Court Register maintained under Rule 1 of part D of the Rules "

In the present casa, admittedly the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for the post advertised. Out of the 13 candidates who were interviewed by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was the best He was recommended for appointment by the Selection Committee. The Vice Chancellor also agreed with the recommendation of the Selection committee. It is, unfortunately, on account of the extraneous report .of the Administrative Committee that the Board of Management has not appointed the petitioner on the post.

Recently, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of J. V. Gupta, C J.and R. S. Mongia, J., in L. P. A. No. 1280 of 1988 (The State of Haryana and Anr. v. Rajinder Kumar and Ors.), L, P. A. No. 1180 of 1988. decided on July 18, 1990, has the occasion to consider the question whether a person, who is duly selected, has the right to be appointed. The Division Bench observed as under : -

"In support of the above two contentions (i) and (ii) that mere selection does rot give right to a candidate and it ii upto the State Government whether to give appointment or not, the appellants'' counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marvaha and Ors. 1973(2) S.L.R. 137 , Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . Mani Subrat Jain and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and C. W. P. No. 4000 of 1986 (Dharam Pal and Ors. v. The State of Haryana) decided by this Court on 27th November 1987 There can be no quarrel with the proposition that mere selection does not confer any right for appointment. But if posts are available and the selection has been made for those posts and even fresh advertisement is issued for the same very, posts and some persons are appointed against those posts on ad hoc basis to man those posts, then in such circumstances the State Government must give legal justification for not appointing the candidates who have bean duly selected. The learned Single Judge while repelling this point of the State Government had rightly relied on the Supreme Court case reported as Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana 1986(3) S.L.R. 389, wherein it has been held that the State cannot deny appointment to a candidates who has been selected by a competent authority without any legal justification The Court can go into the legal justification which may be put forth by the State la the present case no such justification is forthcoming at all. On the other hand, the State Government having already stated in Jaginder Singh''s case (supra) that the selected candidates shall be appointed; the fresh advertisement for these posts having bee a issued and members of ministerial staff having been appointed on ad hoc basis to man these posts, would go to show that there was no legal justification whatsoever in not appointing the writ petitioner who had been duly selected. The inaction of the State Government in not giving appointment to the selected candidates, under these circumstances, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The only justification which the learned counsel for the appellants had orally given during the course of arguments is that they had given an undertaking in C.W.P. No. 2839 of 1986 that fresh appointments after advertisement shall be made against these posts It may be mentioned here that apart from the fact that there is no such undertaking by the State Government and the it the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous at the instance of the writ petitioners in that case, as is evident from the order dated 10th March, 1987, quoted above. Such an undertaking, even if it is there, being after the selection of the candidates cannot give legal justification to the State Government for not appointing the writ petitioners who were duly selected Otherwise, we have not been persuaded at all to take a different view in this matter which has been taken by the learned Single Judge."

In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner, who fulfilled the qualifications for the pest and was duly selected by the Selection Committee and the Vice Chancellor, had ill; right to be appointed as no reasons have been disclosed by the Board of Management for not appointing the petitioner to the post. In view of this in order to give effect to the constitutional guarantee of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Senior Scientist Sugarcane. If a candidate who has made a grade in the interview by the Selection Committee is deuiod appointment, the guarantee of equal opportunity in the matter of appointment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India will became an empty formality. Once the post is advertised and the candidates applied for the same, any of the candidates who makes grade and the Selection Committee recommends him, is entitled to be appointed; except in case the candidate does not fulfil the requisite qualification or there is something pertaining to his antecedents. There should be strong reasons for refusing to appoint a candidate duly selected, otherwise the whole process of the selection for public appointment will become a farce and empty formality.

It is also significant lo note that under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been vested with the powers to issue writs, orders or directions for enforcement of fundamental rights apart from the specific writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto etc. Likewise, for enforcement of fundamental right;, powers have been conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 of trio Constitution of India. The High Court is empowered under Article 226 to issueany writ, order or direction for enforcement of fundamental rights. The powers of the High Court are not limited to issue only prerogative writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certicraii (see T.C. Basappa Vs. T. Nagappa and Another, . and Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar v. The Stare of Madras (1959) (2)S.C R. 316.

The refusal to appoint a candidate duly recommended by the Selection Committee should be on some rational ground It cannot be arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable as otherwise inaction on the part of the State would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India (see K. Sadanandan v. The State of Kerala A. I. R. 1963 Ker 39. N. Rudraradhya v. State of Mysore A. I. R. 1961 Karn 247. State of Mysore Vs. S.R. Jayaram, . and Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, .

On a carerul analysis of the legal position I am of the opinion that in order to ensure equal opportunity in the matter of appointment and employment under the State guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India, it is necessary that there should be proper Selection Committee; the procedure for selection should be fair and just; the qualifications for the post should be laid down; the Selection Committee should arrange the names of the candidates in the order of their merit; the recommendations of the Selection Committee will be considered by the appointing authority. The appointing authority can refuse to appoint a candidate only if the candidate does not possess the requisite qualifications advertised or, otherwise, his antecedents are bad which make him unsuitable for the post. The government cannot, for undisclosed reasons, refuse to appoint a candidate recommended by the Selection Committee because, otherwise, the whole procedure will become arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. Further, I am of the opinion that in suitable cases., for enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is empowered to order the government to make appointment to the post in order of merit prepared by the Selection Committee if the government is unable to disclose good reasons in support of their refusal to appoint. In the present case, the respondents have not disclosed any reason whatsoever which may show that the petitioner is not suitable for appointment or his antecedents are not good. The Board of Management has no power to order reinterview of the candidates by a fresh Selection Committee. In this view of the matter I find that that the action of the respondents is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner, who has made a grade before the Selection Committee; the Selection Committee has duty recommended him and the Vice Chancellor has also recommended his appointment, has been denied appointment by the respondents is an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious manner. This action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

As I find that; this writ petition can be decided on the legal questions addressed at the Bar, it is not necessary to go into the question of mala fide against Sari Manohar Singh Gill, respordent no. 3.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. I issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the Administrative Committee dated August 12, 1988 .(Annsxure P 6) and of the Board of Management dated August 19, 1988 (Annexure P-7) to be illegal, ultra vires, null and void and restrain the respondents from acting on the same I further direct that the respondents should appoint the petitioner as a Senior Scientist Sugarcane within a period of one month from today with all consequential benefits with effect from August 19, 1988, the date on which the Beard of Management decided this case On this date, the petitioner should have been offered the appointment by the respondent University However, as the petitioner has not worked on the post, he will not be entitled to pay and allowances of this post Be will, however, be entitled to all other consequential benefits including the seniority with effect from August 19, 1988. No costs.