1990 (3) TMI 367 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.
2. Whether the Chancellor's decision is quasi-judicial or administrative.
3. Compliance with prescribed qualifications for the post of Reader in Psychology.
4. The role and authority of the Selection Committee and Executive Council in university appointments.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Chancellor's Power u/s 31(8)(a) of the Act:
The Chancellor of Lucknow University, exercising power u/s 31(8)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, directed the appointment of the appellant as Reader in Psychology. The High Court quashed this order, leading to the present appeal.

2. Quasi-Judicial vs. Administrative Nature of the Chancellor's Decision:
The High Court held that the Chancellor's power is quasi-judicial, requiring explicit reasons for his decision. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Chancellor's function is administrative, not quasi-judicial. The Chancellor's decision is based on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the opinion of the Executive Council, and does not require adherence to principles of natural justice.

3. Compliance with Prescribed Qualifications:
The Selection Committee found the appellant suitable based on her published work of high standard, despite lacking a Ph.D. degree. The Executive Council disagreed, stating she did not meet the essential qualifications. The Chancellor, however, supported the Selection Committee's recommendation, noting that the appellant met the alternate qualification as per Statute 11.01.

4. Role and Authority of the Selection Committee and Executive Council:
The Selection Committee, comprising experts, recommended the appellant for the post. The Executive Council, lacking subject experts, disagreed and preferred another candidate. The matter was referred to the Chancellor, whose decision is final. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Chancellor's decision should be based on the expert assessment by the Selection Committee and the Executive Council's opinion.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and the consequential order reverting the appellant to her previous post. The appellant's appointment as Reader remains undisturbed with all consequential benefits. The Court highlighted that judicial interference in academic appointments should be minimal, respecting the expertise of the Selection Committee.