Dr. H.K. Verma vs The Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar

K.C. Gupta, J.—Shri H.K. Verma, petitioner, was appointed as an Agriculture Extension Officer in 1965. He joined the service of Chaudhary Chafan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (hereinafter to be referred as ''respondent-University'') in 1971 as Technical Assistant. In due course of time, the post of Technical Assistant was designed as Assistant Professor. The petitioner was promoted as Professor with effect from July 1, 1995 and since then he was continu-ine to discharge the duties as such.

A meeting of the Selection Committee for the appointment of Head of the Department of Extension Education was held on 28.1.1998 in which the names of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3, Dr. R.S. Mailk, were considered. However, keeping in view the over all performance of me candidates, the Committee recommended the name ofthe petitioner for appointment as Head, Department of Extension Education, vide Annexure P-1. Consequently, upon his selection, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University, vide order dated 4.2.1998, Annexure P-2, appointed the petitioner as Head, Department of Extension Education, in exercise of the powers vested in him u/s 16(6) ofthe Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970, subject to the confir-mation of the ''action taken by him by the Board of Management.

The matter regarding approval for the appointment of Head of the Department of Extension Education was placed before the Personal Committee/Board of Management vide Item No. B-26 of its 180th meeting held on 9.6.1998. The Personal Committee approved the name of the petitioner as recommended by the Vice Chancellor and requested the Board to confirm the same vide Annexure P-3.

Later on, the Board desired the Personal Committee to re-consider the matter. Till then, the decision on Item No. B-26 was deferred. The allegation of the petitioner is that this re-consideration was done at the instance of respondent No. 4, Jaivir Singh Bisla, who was the nominated/non- official member of the Board of Management and was closely related to respondent No. 3. The Personal Committee reconsidered the matter in its 16th meeting held on 24.9.1998 and it felt that respondent No. 3, Dr. R.S. Malik, was the better candidate.

The recommendation made by the Personal Committee was deliberated by the Board vide Item No. B-13 of its 181st meeting held on 28.9.1998 and the Board considered Dr. R.S. Malik as a better candidate in terms of the academic record, publication etc. and it was, therefore, decided that the petitioner be relieved from hardship and in his place Dr. R.S. Malik be appointed. In pursuance of this decision of the Board, Vice Chancellor was pleased to relieve Dr. H.K. Verma, from the Hardship of the Department of Extension and appointed Dr. R.S. Malik as Head of the De-partment with immediate effect vide order dated 29.9.1998, Annexure P-4. Subsequently, the proceedings of 181st meeting of the Board of Management held on 28.9.1998 at Delhi were confirmed vide Annexure P-5. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition in the nature of certiorari, has challenged his removal as Head of the Department and appointment of respondent No.. 3 as such vide Annexure P-4 dated 29.9.1998. He had also challenged notification dated 21.1.1999, Annexure P-8, vide which fresh applications were invited for Head of the Department of Extension Education, College of Agriculture. The said writ petition was filed on 6.10.1998.

Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 7.10.1998. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint writ ten statement while respondent No. 4 filed separate written statement.

Counsel for the petitioner, Sh. Gunjan Mehta, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sh. Girish Agni-hotri, counsel for respondent No. 3, Sh R.K. Malik, counsel for respondent No. 4, Sh. S.S. Kharb were heard and the record was gone through carefully.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee arid he was even appointed as Head of the Department of Extension Education, College of Agriculture, by the Vice Chancellor vide Annexure P-2 dated 4.2.1998 in view of the powers vested in him u/s 16(6) of the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee as immediate action was required to be taken in the matter of appointments of Heads of the Departments. Thereafter/the matter was placed before the Personal Committee, who, in its meeting held on 9.6.1998 vide Item No. B-26, approved the action taken by the Vice Chancellor and forwarded it to the Board for confirmation. He further contended that the Board, for some ulterior consideration, desired the Personal Committee to re-consider this matter and till then, the decision on the Item was deferred. The Personal Committee, after re-considering the matter, approved the name of Dr. R.S. Malik, respondent No. 3, instead of the petitioner, which was approved by the Board vide Annexure P-4 dated 29.9.1998. Accordingly, Dr. R.S. Malik was appointed as Head of the Department instead of petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this was done illegally at the intervention of Sh. Jaivir Singh Bisla, who was non-official member of the Board as well as Personal Committee to whom respondent No. 3 was related.

In order to appreciate the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, it will be apposite to reproduce Statute 4 in Chapter IV, which regulates the procedure for appointment to various posts including Heads of Departments :-

"....The Vice Chancellor, with the approval of the Board of Management, may make the appointments of Heads of the Departments by selection from amongst Professors/equivalent irrespective of their mode of appointment i.e. whether by direct appointment or by personal promotion or by any other method of appointment as per Statutory provisions, who satisfy the following eligibility criteria :-

(i) They belong to the discipline of the department;

(ii) Where there is no Professor, in a department who is so eligible, Associate Professor/equivalent irrespective 6f the mode of appointment i.e. whether by direct appointment or by personal promotion or by any other method of appointment as per statutory provisions shall be eligible to apply provided they have 5 years service on the post of Associate Professor/equivalent.

(iii) Integrity of the applicant is good for the last 10 years.

(iv) They have not previously worked as Head of Department for full term of 3 years.

Where there is only one Professor/equivalent irrespective of mode of their appointment whether by direct appointment or by personal promotion in a department and has earlier worked as HOD, he/she will be eligible for re- appointment as Head of the Department for another term of 3 years. Where there is no Professor in a Department and there is only one Associate Professor who has earlier worked as Head of the Department, he will be eligible for reappointment as such.

Selection of the Head of the Department may be made by Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Board on the basis of panel of two names in order of merit as per recommendations by Selection Committee consisting of:

Vice Chancellor, Chairman

Dean of the college concerned.

Dean, Postgraduate Studies

Director of Extension Education

Director of Research

One outside expert scientist of repute to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor.

The appointment of HOD shall be for a period of 3 years or less to the extent for those who have earlier worked as Head of the Department for a period exceeding 90 days in the past. His period may be reduced by the Vice Chancellor if the work of the incumbent is not found satisfactory for which the Vice Chancellor shall review the performance every year through the following Committee.

Vice Chancellor, Chairman

Dean of the college concerned, Member

Director of Research, Director of Extension Education, Member

Registrar, Member Secretary

Note.:- Where there is only one Professor who has been appointed as Head of the Department for a second term of 3 years, he/she would continue to complete his/her tenure even after another teacher becomes otherwise eligible for appointment as Head in the meantime."

Therefore, a perusal of Statute 4 would indicate that the appointment of Head of the Department is to be made by selection. Since, the petitioner had not discharged the duties of the Head of the Department at all, he was eligible for consideration for appointment as Head of the Department under the aforesaid provisions. There is no dispute about it that only the petitioner and respondent No. 3, Dr. R.S. Malik, applied for appointment as Head of the Department. However, the Selection Committee vide Annexure P-l dated 28.1.1998 recommended the name of the petitioner alone and did not recommend the name of respondent No. 3, Dr. R.S. Malik, at all. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor appointed the petitioner as Head of the Department vide order dated 4.2.1998 as in his opinion immediate action was required in the matter of appointment of the Head of the Departments. Even the so-called Personal Committee had also approved the action of the Vice Chancellor and had forwarded the matter to the Board for confirmation. Subsequently, on the desire of the Board, the Personal Committee reconsidered the matter and recommended the name of Dr. R.S. Malik, respondent No. 3, for appointment as Head of the Department. Under the Statute, there is no such thing as Personal Committee and according to the Statute, the selection of the Head of the Department is to be made by the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the Board on the basis of panel of two names in order of merit as per recommendations by Selection Committee. The Selection Committee is a body of experts. The very fact that the Selection Committee had not recommended the name of Dr. R.S. Malik at all at Sr. No. 2 i.e. below the name of the petitioner shows that the Selection Committee did not find respondent No. 3 suitable to be appointed as Head of the Department at all. It is not the case that the Board had disapproved the recommendation of the Selection Committee on the ground that it had not recommended two names but for some obvious reasons it by-pass the Selection Committee and substituted their own candidate with the help of Personal Committee which is totally illegal and against the Statute. A perusal of Annexure P-6, Item A1, shows that the matter regarding confirmation of the proceedings of the last meeting of the Board of Management was taken up in which the letter written by Dr. A.K. Sinha from ICAR, Member of the Board was read. He clearly stated in his letter that regular appointments could not be made without the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee and the Personal Committee could not take up itself the role of an Expert Committee for selection of candidates and as such he did not approve the method in which the appointment of Dr. R.S. Malik as Head, Department of Extension Education, was made as the same was not recommended by the Selection Committee. He had further stated in the letter that at best the recommendation of the Selection Committee could have been turned down and process afresh should have been started for selection of head of the Department. Upon this letter, the matter was reconsidered by the Board and although it did not approve the appointment of the petitipner, yet it reviewed its last decision to appoint Dr. R.S. Malik in his place and accordingly, it was held that Dr. R.S. Malik would no longer work as Head of the Department. Thus, Dr. R.S. Malik had also been removed as Head of the Department. Consequently, upon this decision, the Vice Chancellor removed Dr. R.S. Malik as Head of the Department of Extension Education vide Annexure P-7 dated 18.1.1999. The Board was not competent to sit over the judgment of the Selection Committee without any reasonable cause or excuse in ignoring the suitability of the petitioner as Head of the Department. Moreover, Dr. R.S. Malik had not challenged the findings of the Selection Committee before the Board. It is not understandable as to how the Board had considered Dr. R.S. Malik as a better candidate since he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee. Moreover, Annexure B, the personal achievement of the petitioner, shows that he was better qualified than respondent No. 3 as he had number of publications to his credit besides performing administrative duties. He was having experience of 31 years and 10 months in-eluding teaching/research experience of 11 years and 3 months while respondent No. 3 had lesser experience. The academic record of the petitioner was much better than respondent No. 3 as is clear from Annexure P3/B. The Vice Chancellor, as a Head of the University, had also approved the selection of the petitioner and then had put up the case before the Board of Management. No doubt, that under Statute 4(4), the matter is to be finally decided by the Board of Management. To disapprove the recommendation of the Selection Committee, there must be some drastic material before it which might had escaped the notice of the Selection Committee or there is something drastically wrong in observing the procedure in recommending the candidate. It is under these circumstances that the Board may be in a position to say ''No'' to the recommendation of the Selection Committee. On what basis the Board had found Dr. R.S. Malik to be a better candidate than the petitioner is not known. Consequently, we find that rejection of the recommendatibn of the Selection Committee by the Board of Management is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this court in Karam Singh v. Punjab Agricultural University and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 12069 of 1997, decided on May 3,1999, had quashed the order of the Board of Management which was against the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

Counsel for the respondent-University contended that the recommendations of the Selection Committee were bad inasmuch as the Statute requires sending of panel of two names in order of merit for approval but it had sent only the name of the petitioner. In our opinion, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University is not tenable in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Dr. Bhim Singh Dahlya v. Chaudhary Cha-ran Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar 1999(2) SCT 538 (P&H)(DB) : 1999(3) RSJ 172 in which it was observed that where the Selection Committee had held that there was no other candidate found suitable for the post under contention, then no fault could be found with the decision of the Selection Committee recommending the name of one person only. Similarly, it has been held by Single Bench of this Court in Dr. B.S. Sidhu, Agronomist v. The Punjab Agricultural University and others 1991(1) SCT 404 (P&H) : 1991(1) SLR 689 that the Administrative Committee had no right to reconsider the recommendations of the Selection Committee approved by the Vice Chancellor as according to the Statute, the Vice Chancellor had the exclusive jurisdiction to constitute the Selection Committee and the reconsideration done by the Administrative Committee was illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Even if we do not consider whether Personal Committee was validity constituted or not, then also the Board of Management had no right to ignore the findings of the Selection Committee without some drastic material before it. It is also not the case of the Board that the Selection Committee had drastically followed wrong procedure in recommending the name of the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the post of Head of the Department of Extension Education, had been re-advertised vide notification Annexure P-8 dated 21.1.1999 which should also be set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and quash the order of the Board of Management dated 29.9.1998, Annexure P-4, as also the notification dated 21.1.1999, Annexure P-8, whereby the said post was re- advertised. The petitioner be immediately given the appointment as Head of the Department of .''Extension Education for a period of four years. However, we make no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.