Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with two civil appeals arising from Allahabad High Court judgments concerning lecturer appointments at an affiliated degree college under the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965. In the first appeal, Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 1983, the appellant college selected Ram Sanjeevan Shukla for a History lecturer post. The Vice-Chancellor refused approval on 16 May 1975 because Shukla had studied Ancient History and was therefore unqualified to teach History. The High Court upheld the refusal. During pendency, a separate Ancient History Department was created, and Shukla taught there while another lecturer, Umesh Chandra Kanchan, taught History. The Ancient History post was continued on a temporary year-to-year basis for over 20 years. The Supreme Court observed that at such distance of time it was difficult to accept the post as temporary; it had acquired permanent status. The Court directed continuation of Ram Sanjeevan Shukla in the Ancient History Department and gave liberty to the Government to convert the post into permanent. No costs were awarded. In the second appeal, Civil Appeal No. 5322 of 1983, two Hindi lecturers were involved: Surendra Narain Saxena and Mithilesh Kumar @ Kantesh. The management advertised vacancies in only two newspapers instead of the required three, and the Vice-Chancellor refused approval for Saxena under Section 26(4) of the Act. The High Court set aside the refusal and directed regularization of Saxena. Pending appeal, the Supreme Court permitted reinstatement of Saxena due to shortage of qualified teachers. Mithilesh Kumar was appointed after retirement of Thakur Das Vaidya, but the Vice-Chancellor refused approval due to lack of minimum prescribed qualification and directed advertisement of the post. The Court held that the advertisement requirement was mandatory to inform all candidates, but considering Saxena's qualifications, selection, long continuation, and interim reinstatement, it declined to invalidate his appointment despite the statutory irregularity. However, regarding Mithilesh Kumar, the Court found he lacked minimum qualifications and that his selection did not follow the mandatory composition of the Selection Committee under Section 31(4)(d) of the Act. The Court clarified that even for temporary appointments, the selection committee must include the head of management or nominee, the principal and another teacher, and two experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. The Court rejected the contention that approval was subsequently given, holding it invalid. The second appeal was dismissed with no costs, and Mithilesh Kumar's service stood automatically terminated on 30 June 1978.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment of Lecturers - Subject Qualification - Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, Section 26(4) - Vice-Chancellor refused approval for History lecturer because candidate specialized in Ancient History; after Ancient History Department created and candidate taught over 20 years on temporary post, Supreme Court held post acquired permanent status and directed continuation with Government liberty to convert it permanent - Held long continuous temporary service creates permanency (Paras not mentioned). B) Service Law - Advertisement of Vacancies - Mandatory Publication in Newspapers - Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, Section 26(4) - Management advertised in two newspapers instead of required three; Vice-Chancellor refused approval for qualified selected lecturer; court recognized mandatory nature of advertisement rule but declined to invalidate appointment due to long continuation, qualification, and interim reinstatement by Supreme Court - Held mandatory violation may be overlooked in equity after long service (Paras not mentioned). C) Service Law - Minimum Qualification - Appointment of Unqualified Lecturer - Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, Sections 31(1), 31(3)(b), 31(4)(d) - Mithilesh Kumar lacked minimum prescribed qualification and selection did not follow statutory selection committee composition; Vice-Chancellor rightly refused approval and directed advertisement; court held appointment illegal and service terminated on 30.06.1978; management cannot retain unqualified teacher - Held compliance with selection procedure and qualifications is mandatory (Paras not mentioned). D) Service Law - Selection Committee Composition - Mandatory Nature - Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965, Section 31(4)(d) - Court clarified that even for temporary appointments, selection committee must consist of head/management nominee, principal and another teacher, and two Vice-Chancellor nominees; non-compliance renders appointment invalid - Held statutory selection procedure must be followed before seeking approval (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Vice-Chancellor rightly refused approval for appointment of a History lecturer with Ancient History qualification; whether a long-continued temporary post can be declared permanent; whether non-publication of advertisement in required number of newspapers invalidates appointment of a qualified lecturer; whether an unqualified lecturer's appointment without proper selection committee can be approved or continued
Final Decision
In Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 1983, appeal disposed of; Ram Sanjeevan Shukla to be continued in Ancient History Department; Government at liberty to convert the post permanent; no costs. In Civil Appeal No. 5322 of 1983, appeal dismissed; appointment of Surendra Narain Saxena not invalidated despite advertisement irregularity; approval of Mithilesh Kumar's appointment refused and his service terminated on 30.06.1978; no costs.
Law Points
- Advertisement of vacancies in newspapers mandatory under Section 26(4) of Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act
- 1965
- continuous temporary service for over 20 years acquires permanency
- minimum prescribed qualification mandatory for lecturer appointment
- selection committee composition under Section 31(4)(d) mandatory even for temporary appointments
- Vice-Chancellor approval required and can be refused for lack of qualification or procedure
- management cannot retain unqualified teacher after expiry of temporary period
