Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from appointment of a temporary lecturer in the Department of Islamic Studies at Aligarh Muslim University from a reserve list prepared for a permanent vacancy. The University advertised one permanent post of lecturer in Islamic studies. The Selection Committee selected one candidate, a temporary lecturer, and appointed him to the permanent vacancy. It also prepared a reserve list of three more candidates, including one of the appellants, to fill future vacancies. When a temporary vacancy subsequently arose in the same department, one of the reserve list candidates was appointed. The original writ petitioners, who were also candidates, challenged this appointment and the very power of the Executive Council and Selection Committee to prepare a select list and keep it alive for filling vacancies without resorting to the selection procedure under Section 29 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. The Allahabad High Court Division Bench held that the University's procedure of constituting a committee under resolution Item No. 58 and keeping a select list alive for future vacancies violated Section 29(2)(a) of the Act and declared the resolution and Executive Council action ultra vires. The aggrieved candidates filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The appellants contended that Section 29(2) does not prohibit preparation of reserve list, that the selection process is lengthy and reserve list avoids loss of student classes, and that the practice continued even after the High Court judgment. They relied on Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain, where a reserved wait list was upheld under Section 6 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 29 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, which requires all appointments to permanent posts of teachers to be made by the Executive Council on recommendation of a Selection Committee after advertisement and interview, and separately prescribes the procedure for temporary vacancies in Section 29(2)(b). The Court observed that the object is to fill all permanent vacancies by advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible persons to claim selection in a regular process. Referring to Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that every citizen has a fundamental right to claim consideration for appointment to posts under the State, and vacancies arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates. Appointment of candidates kept in waiting list against vacancies arising subsequently without fresh notification is unconstitutional. The Court distinguished Dr. Uma Kant because that case involved an express statutory power under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Act to prepare a select list of 50% of posts valid for six months, whereas Section 29 of the AMU Act contains no such power. The Court held that Section 29 itself is the source of power for recruitment and procedure, including for temporary vacancies, and the practice of reserve lists for future vacancies is ultra vires. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upheld the High Court judgment, and directed the University to fill up even temporary posts in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 29 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment to Permanent Posts - Section 29(2)(a) Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Permanent posts must be filled by Executive Council on recommendation of Selection Committee after advertisement and interview; reserve list for future vacancies not permitted - The University advertised one permanent post, but the Selection Committee prepared a reserve list and kept it alive for future vacancies arising due to retirement etc. The High Court held this procedure ultra vires Section 29(2)(a). The Supreme Court agreed that Section 29 is the source of power and prescribed procedure, and no reserve list for future vacancies is permissible under it. Held that preparation and operation of reserve list for vacancies arising later is ultra vires the Act (Paras 1-5). B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16(1) Constitution of India - Equal opportunity in public employment - Vacancies arising or expected should be notified inviting applications from all eligible candidates - The Supreme Court relied on Ashok Kumar, Prem Singh, and other precedents to state that appointment of candidates kept in waiting list against vacancies arising subsequently without fresh notification is unconstitutional and denies fundamental right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1). Held that the procedure of filling future vacancies from reserve list violates constitutional guarantee of equality (Paras 4-5). C) Service Law - Temporary Appointments - Section 29(2)(b) Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 - Temporary vacancies must be filled as per statutory procedure, not from reserve list - Section 29(2)(b) provides specific procedure for filling temporary vacancies; appointment of a reserve list candidate to a temporary vacancy without following that procedure is invalid. Court directed the University to fill up even temporary posts in accordance with Section 29 procedure as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from date of order. Held that temporary appointments must strictly follow statutory procedure (Paras 5-6). D) Precedent - Distinguishing Dr. Uma Kant - Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 Section 6 - Ratio of Dr. Uma Kant not applicable because statute expressly allowed select list - In Dr. Uma Kant, Section 6 of Rajasthan Act permitted preparation of select list of 50% of posts and validity for six months; the AMU Act contains no such express power. Held that the ratio in Dr. Uma Kant has no application to facts of this case because Section 29 of AMU Act does not authorize reserve list (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether preparation of reserve list and keeping it alive for filling up vacancies arising subsequently by the Aligarh Muslim University Executive Council is permissible under Section 29(2)(a) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, and whether appointment from such reserve list violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Special Leave Petition dismissed. High Court judgment upheld. University directed to fill up even temporary posts in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 29 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- All appointments to permanent posts of teachers in university must be made by Executive Council on recommendation of Selection Committee after advertisement and interview
- Section 29(2)(a) Aligarh Muslim University Act
- 1920
- Selection Committee cannot make selection for future vacancies or fill up posts from reserve list
- vacancies should be advertised and selection duly made giving equal opportunity to all candidates
- temporary vacancies must be filled in accordance with Section 29(2)(b) procedure
- Article 14 read with Article 16(1) enshrines fundamental right to every citizen to claim consideration for appointment to post under State
- appointment from waiting list against vacancies arising subsequently without fresh notification is unconstitutional
- Dr. Uma Kant distinguished because Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act
- 1974 Section 6 expressly allowed select list of 50% and six months validity.
