Dr. Uma Kant and Anr v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and Ors.
KASLIWAL, J. Speeial Leaves granted.
Briefly stated the facts are that University of Rajasthan invited ap-
C plications for the post of Professor in the department of Botany. The Selec
tion Committee constituted under Sec. 5 of .the Rajasthan University
Teachers and Officers (Selection for appointment) Act of 1974 (herein
after referred to as the 'Act of 1974') held interviews on 20th June, 1989
and selected Dr. G.S. Nathawat for the post of Professor in Botany. The
name of Dr. Uma Kant was mentioned in the reserve list by the Selection
Committee. The syndicate of the University approved the list and ap-
D pointed Dr. Nathawat on the said post. Dr. Nathawat retired on 30th Sep
tember, 1989 and Dr. Uma Kant who was already selected and kept in the
reserve list was appointed as Professor in the department of Botany. Dr.
Bhikalal, Dr. Shiv Sharma, Dr. Sudhakar Mishra and Dr. T.N. Bhardwaj
who were not selected filed a writ petition in the High Court initially chal-
E Ienging the appointment of Dr. Nathawat on the ground that the Selection
Committee was not constituted in accordance with law and objection was
also raised that once a selected person joins the post, the reserve list ex
hausted itself. Dr. Bhikalal and others subsequently impleaded Dr. Uma
Kant also as one of the respo~dents in the writ petition. The respondents,
in their reply to the writ petition, submitted that the selection committee
. F was properly constituted. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was rightly
made as the life of the reserve list was initially for six months and sub
sequently extended to one year by a resolution of the Syndicate dated
3.12.1983. Learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection
Committee was valid but as regards the appointment of Dr. Uma Kant
from the reserve list it was held that once a person selected by the Selec-
G tion Committee had been appointed the reserve list stood exhausted and
the person named in the reserve list could not- be appointed against a
future vacancy. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was held illegal and it
was directed that Dr. Uma Kant be removed from the said post of Profes
sor of Botany. Both Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University of Rajasthan
filed special appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the
H High Court by a common order dated March 6, 1991 upheld the order of
UMA KANf v. B.L JAIN [ KASUWAL,J.) 419
the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals. The Division Bench A
after considering Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974 held that the
purpose of preparation of the reserve list seems to be that if the person
selected at No. 1 does not join then the next man in the reserve list should
be appointed. But if the person selected by the Selection Committee is
given appointment and he joins, then, selection made by the Committee is
exhausted and the reserve list is qf no avail and becomes extinct. It was also B
held that once a person selected by the Selection Committee has joined,
that post is filled and some vacancy is caused thereafter a fresh and de
novo selection committee procedure has to be started because that will be
a case of future vacancy arising after the post had been filled ·up on the
recommendations ·or the Selection Committee. ·
Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court,
Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University have come in appeal by grant of
special leave.
In order to appreciate the controversy we would advert to certain
relevant provisions of the Act of 1974. Relevant provisions of Sections 3, 5 D
and 6 are as follows:
Section 3 - Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as
from the commencement of this Act, no teacher and no of6cer
in any University in Rajastban shall be appointed except on the E
recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted
under Sec. 5.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-s. (3), every appointment
of a teacher or of an officer in any University made in con
travention of sub-s. (1) shall be null and void.
Section 5 - Constitution of Selection Committee
(1) For every selection of a teacher or of an officer in a Univer
sity, there shall be constituted a committee consisting of die
following: -
(i) Vice Chancellor of the University concerned, who shall be
the Chairman of the Committee;
(ii) an eminent educati0nist to be nominated by the Chancellor
for a period of one year;
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R..
(iii) an eminent educationist to be nominated by the State
Government for a period of one year;
(iv) One member of the Syndicate to be nominated by the State
Government for a period of one year; and
(v) such other persons as members specified in column 2 of
the Schedule for the selection of the teachers and officers men
tioned in column 1 thereof. ·
Section 6 - Procedure of Selection Committee
(1) The quorum required for the meeting ofa selection com
mittee constituted under Section 5 shall not be less than five,
out of which at least tWo shall be the experts, if the selection to
be made is for the post of a lecturer or any other post of a
teacher equivalent thereto. The quorum required for the meet
ing of a selection committee for the selection of non-teaching
posts shall be not less than one half of the number of members
of the Selection Committee, out of which-at least one shall be
an expert.
(2) The selection committee shall make its recommendations
to the Syndicate, if the Syndicate disapproves the recommen
dations of the selection committee, the Vice-Chance11or of the
·University concerned shall submit such recommendations
alongwith reasons for disapproval given by the syndicate to cne
Chance11or for his consideration and the decision of the Chan
ce11or thereon shall be final.
(3) Every selection committee shall be bound by the qualifica
tions laid down in the relevant law of the University concerned
for the post of a teacher, as the case may be, of an officer.
( 4) The Selection Committee while making its recommenda
tion~ to the Syndicate under sub-section (2) sha11 prepare a list
of candidates'selection by it in order of merit and shall further
prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of
50% of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for
which the selection committee was constituted under sub-sec
tion (1) of Sedion 5 and sha11 forward the main list and the
reserve list alongwith its recommendations to the Syndicate.
UMA KANf v. B. L JAIN ( KASUWAI., J.] 421
Initially the reserve list was to remain valid upto six months from the A
date of approval of the Syndicate as per the resolution of the Syndicate
dated 10th July, 1978 and subsequently the Syndicate by its resolution
passed in its special meeting on 3.12.1983 decided that the reserve list
recommended by the Selection Committee for selection of employee be
treated valid for one year instead of six months. According to the Univer-
sity. this was done in order to .curtail th~ ad-hoc appointments and also B
because the regular selections take a lot of time. It may also be noted that
the Syndicate in its meeting held on .10th July, 1978 had resolved as under:
i. Every Selection Committee may draw a Reserve List of suitable
candidates upto a number not exceeding 50% of the number of post
for which vacancies exist (part vacancy be rounded or to the next C
whole ~umber) and place them in order of priority.
ii. The Reserve List of drawn be treated valid upto six months the date
of approval by the Syndicate of the recommendations of the selection
committee(s). D
iii. On the vacancies caused within the cadre during six months of the
approval of the recommendations, the candidates found suitable and
placed in the reserve list be appointed in the order of priority given
by the Selection Committee. E
As already mentioned above the period of' six months was sub
sequently extended to one year by resolution dated 3.12.1983. The Univer
sity has taken a categorical stand that since 1978 not only in the University
of Rajasthan but all other universities in the State of Rajasthan reserve lists
are prepared and appointments are being made. from the reserve list F
against hlture vacancies arising on account of resignation, retirement or
promotion. A long list of appointments made from reserve list in various
departments of the University of Rajasthan from time to time after joining
of the persons from the main list from 1978 to 1990 have been furnished by
the appellants before this court by an additional affidavit. It has also been
stated that even out of the petitioners who had filed the writ petition, Dr. G
T.N. Bhardwaj himself was kept in the reserve list and was thereafter ap
pointed on the post of reader having fallen vacant subsequently on account
of the promotion of Dr. P. Khanna as Professor.
Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1974 puts a restriction that no teacher in
any university in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommenda- H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.
A tions of the Selection Committee constituted under Sec. 5 (1), and, under
Sec. 3(2) any appointment made in contravention of sub- section (1) of sec.
3 shall be null and void. In the present case Dr. Uma Kant was recom
mended by the Selection Committee constituted under Section 5. Sec. 5
only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee. The High Court
has found that there was no violation of Section 5 in the Constitution of the
B Selection Comm~ttee and the said finding has not been challenged before
us on behalf of the respondents. Section 6 provides for the procedure of
Selection Committee and sub-section ( 4) of Section 6 clearly provides that
the Selection Committee shall prepare a liSt of candidates selected by it in
order of merit and shall further prepare reserve list in the same order and
to the extent of 50% of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for
C which the Selection Committee was constituted. The Syndicate in its
Resolution dated 10th July, 1978 had resolved that the reserve list recom
mended by the Selection Committee shall be valid upto six months from
the date of the approval of the Syndicate which was subsequently extended
to one year instead of six months in a resolution passed on 3.12.1983. In our
view the High Court was wrong in taking the view that a regular vacancy of
D Professor having arisen on the retirement of Dr. G.S. Nathawat on 30th
September, 1989 again a fresh Selection Committee should have been
constituted and no appointment on such post could have been made from
the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June, 1989.
Section 6( 4) clearly provided for the preparation of reserve list to the
extent of 50% of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for which
E the Selection Committee was constituted. It is not in dispute that the main
list and the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June,
1989 were approved by the Syndicate. We agree with the contention of the
university that a reserve list is always prepared to meet the contingency of
anticipated or future vacancies caused on account of resignation, retire-
F . ment, promotion or otherwise. This is done in view of the fact that it takes a
long time in constituting a fresh Selection Committee which has a cumber
some procedure and in order to avoid ad-hoc appointments keeping in
view the interest of the student community. The Selection Committee in
the present case was constituted for the selection of Professor in Botany
and such Selection Committee had approved and recommended the name
G of the appellant Dr. Uma Kant in the reserve list finding him suitable for
appointment on the post of Professor in Botany. The Syndicate which is the
highest executive body in the university had also approved the name of Dr.
Uma Kant in the reserve list which remained valid upto one year and we
cannot accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the
reserve list is exhausted as soon as the person recommended in the main
H list joined the post. In the present case Dr. G8. Nathawat was selected on
'
'
,_ ___
UMA KANT v. B.L JAIN [ KASUWAL,J.) 423
20th June, i989 and was going to retire on 30th September, 1989 and in A
these circumstances it was J)erfectly valid to select one more person and to
keep him in the reserve list for being appointed on the regular vacancy
which was shortly anticipated on account of retirement of Dr. Nathawat.
The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the scope of reserve
list only against the post for which the selection was made and which
according to the High Court could only be availaple to the incumbent in B
the reserve list if the person recommended in the main list did not join such
post. Such interpretation is not borne out from any of the provisions of
Section 3(1), Section 5 or sub-s. ( 4) of Section 6 of the Act of 1974. The
High Court took the .view that the expression 'appointment' in sub-sec. (1)
of Sec. 3 shall mean appointed initially. Then, sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5
provides that for every selection of a teacher in university, there shall be C
constituted a Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein. The
High Court held that the words "for every selection" are very pertinent and
when read with Sec. 3(1) and 3(2), it only means that whenever there is a
regular vacancy for a post, a Selection Committee has to be constituted.
When Dr. G.S. Nathawat retired on 30th September, 1989, a regular vacan-
cy arose and therefore a Selection Committee should have been con- D
stituted afresh.
In our view the High Court was wrong in taking the aforesaid view.
Sec. 5 only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee and the
words "for every selection" used in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 only mean that in
case of every selection of a teacher or of an officer in university, a Commit
tee would be constituted of the persons mentioned in sub-clause (i) to (v)
of the said Section. So far as the present case is concerned, even the High
Court has arrived to the conclusion that the Committee constituted for the
selection of a professor in Botany was proper and in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act of 1974. The appellant, Dr. Uma.Kant was
found suitable for the post-of professor in Botany and his name was recom
mended in the reserve list by the duly constituted Selection Committee.
Sec. 6( 4) of the Act of 1974 clearly provides that the Selection Committee
while making its recommendations to the syndicate under sub-sec. (2) shall,
prepare a list of candidates selected by it in order of merit and shall further ·
prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of 50% of the
vacancies for the post of teachers or officers. Thus a reading of Sec. 5 with
Sec. 6( 4) makes it quite clear that the Selection Committee constituted
shall recommend not only the candidates selected by it in order of merit
but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of the val:ancies
and persons kept in the reserve list will be considered as having been
selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment if any
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991} SUPP. 1 S. C.R.
A vacancy is caused during the validity period of the rese~e list. The
suitability of the persons kept in the reserve list is also adjudged by the )--
. Selection Committee which is constituted for selection of a teacher in the
university. Thus no fault can be found that the incumbent recommended in
the reserve list by the Selection Committee was not selected for the con
cerned post of teacher. In our view the very purp0se of preparing a reserve
B list would be defeated if tpe view taken by the High Court is accepted that
once a person selected by the selection committee has joined that post then
selection made by the Committee is exhaU$ted and the reserve list is of no
avail and becomes extinct. There was no meaning or purpose of keeping r
the reserve list alive for a long period of one year, as no person selected for
the post can at all be expected not to join for such a long period of one
C year.
If we examine the matter from another angle, it would be clear that
according to the university such a procedure is in vogue in all the univer
sities of Rajasthan that a reserve list is used for the appointment on a
vacant post caused during the validity period of the reserve list, and
D numerous appointments had been made in the last decade from the reserve
list. The university has also submitted that if the view taken by the High
Court is held to be correct, it will create chaotic situation in the university
as all appointments so far made from the reserve list will become assail
able. It is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if
two interpretations are possible, the c~urts would ordinarily be reluctant to
E accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long oourse
of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would
accept the interpretation .made by such educational authorities.
In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned Judg
ment of the High Court and hold the selection and appointment of the
F appellant, Dr. Uma Kant as valid on the post of Professor in Botany in the
University of Rajasthan.
T.N.A Appeals allowed. ·
y·