Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the Vice-Chancellor of University of Allahabad and others against Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and others regarding appointment to two posts of Readers in Chemistry. The dispute arose after the U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Act, 1994 came into force with effect from December 11, 1993. Prior to that date, the University had initiated a selection process for various posts, including Readers. In February 1995, a fresh advertisement was issued for two Readers in Chemistry. On a representation by the respondents, the Chancellor, exercising powers under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, directed the Vice-Chancellor on June 6, 1995 to appoint the respondents as Readers. The Vice-Chancellor sought guidance from the Chancellor on June 15, 1995, citing the conflict with the reservation Act. The Chancellor referred the matter to the Law Department and informed the University on July 8, 1995. The respondents filed a writ petition on July 17, 1995 seeking mandamus to implement the Chancellor's direction. Meanwhile, the Governor, acting under Section 6 of the 1994 Act, cancelled appointments made in violation of the Act, and affected persons filed separate writ petitions which were pending. The core legal issue was whether the selection process had been initiated before the commencement of the Act, therefore exempt under Section 15(1), and whether the Chancellor's direction could override the Act's reservation requirements. The respondents argued that screening of candidates before the Act constituted initiation of selection process. The University contended that the interview for selection commenced on December 12, 1993, after the Act's commencement, so the Act applied. The Court held that under Section 15(1) read with the Explanation, for interview-only selections, the process is initiated when the interview starts. Since the interview began on December 12, 1993, the Act applied and the selection without reservation was illegal. The Court also held that the Chancellor's direction under Section 68 was invalid as it conflicted with the Act, and that selected candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment. Relying on Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Ramakrishna Rao, State of Harvana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh, and Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, the Court concluded that mere inclusion in a select list does not create a legal right enforceable by mandamus. Consequently, the Court held that the reservation Act applied, the Chancellor's direction was invalid, and no mandamus could be issued to appoint the respondents. The appeal was decided in favor of the University, rejecting the respondents' claim for appointment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Applicability of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC/ST/OBC) Act, 1994 - Section 15(1) and Explanation - The Act applied to selections initiated after its commencement; initiation means written test or interview started; for interview-only selections, the interview date is decisive - The selection process for Readers started by interview on December 12, 1993, after the Act came into force on December 11, 1993, hence the reservation provisions under Section 3 applied and the selection made without reservation was illegal. Held that the Act was applicable. B) Constitutional Law - Executive Powers - Chancellor's Direction under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act versus Statutory Reservation Mandate - The Chancellor's direction under Section 68 could not override the mandatory reservation provisions of the 1994 Act; when acting under the Act, the Governor exercises constitutional functions with aid and advice, and a conflicting direction is invalid - The Court held that the Chancellor's order directing appointment of respondents was cancelled as it violated the Act; the university was bound to implement reservation. C) Service Law - Appointment Rights - No Indefeasible Right from Merely Being Selected - Reliance on Shankarsan Dash and other precedents - A candidate whose name appears in the select list does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment, and mandamus cannot be issued unless there is a legal right under the statute - The respondents had no legal right to be appointed; the writ of mandamus to implement the Chancellor's direction could not be issued. Held that no mandamus lies.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chancellor (Governor) was right in directing the Vice-Chancellor to appoint the respondents as Readers in Chemistry despite the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC/ST and Backward Classes) Act, 1994 coming into force before the selection process commenced.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the selection process for the posts of Readers was initiated after the commencement of the 1994 Act, as the interview started on December 12, 1993, thus the Act's reservation provisions applied. The Chancellor's direction under Section 68 was invalid as it conflicted with the Act. The respondents had no indefeasible right to appointment merely by being selected; hence the mandamus could not be issued. The appeal was decided in favour of the University.
Law Points
- Under Section 15(1) of U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Caste
- Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Act
- 1994
- the Act applies if selection process initiated after commencement
- initiation means written test or interview started
- for interview-only selections
- interview date governs
- no indefeasible right to appointment from mere selection
- mandamus cannot be issued without legal right
- statutory direction under Section 68 of U.P. State Universities Act cannot override mandatory reservation provisions
- reservation percentages applicable to direct recruitment.
