/2022 INSC 0378/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11212 OF 2017
RAM CHANDRA     ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.    ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T 
B.R. GAVAI, J.  
 
1. The   appellant   has   filed   this   appeal   challenging   the
judgment   and   order   dated   25 th
  March,   2014,   passed   by   the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the Writ Petition
No.   17066   of   2014,   whereby   the   said   writ   petition   was
dismissed.  
2. The   facts   in   brief   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeal   are   as
under:
1

3. The   Respondent­Bundelkhand   University   (hereinafter
referred to as “the University”) had published an advertisement
for making appointments to various posts of teaching faculty in
the year 2002.
4. The   appellant   had   applied   in   response   to   the   said
advertisement   and   was   interviewed   by   a   Selection   Committee,
which   was   constituted   in   accordance   with   sub­section   (4)   of
Section   31   of   the   Uttar   Pradesh   State   Universities   Act,   1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1973 Act’).
5. Though, the appellant was not found suitable for the post
advertised,   he   came   to   be   appointed   as   a   Lecturer   (Geology)
vide order dated 28 th
 February, 2002.  
6. Another advertisement came to be issued in the year 2002
for the post of Reader in the subject of Geology.   The Selection
Committee,   which   was   constituted   in   accordance   with   the
statutory   provisions,   found   the   appellant   suitable   and
recommended   him   for   appointment   as   a   Reader   in   the   subject
of   Geology.   The   Executive   Council   of   the   University,   in   its
2

meeting   held   on   1 st
  February,   2003,   accepted   the   said
recommendation.  The appellant was, accordingly, appointed as
Reader in the subject of Geology.
7. It appears that after a long period following the appellant’s
appointment,   certain   complaints   were   made   to   the   Hon’ble
Chancellor   that   the   appe llant’s   appointment   was   not   in
accordance   with   law.     The   Hon’ble   Chancellor   therefore,
initiated  suo motu  enquiry under Section 68 of  the 1973 Act . In
the enquiry, the Hon’ble Chancellor found that the appointment
of   the   appellant   was   not   in   accordance   with   law   and   as   such,
he issued an order dated 3 rd
  March, 2014, under Section 68 of
the   1973   Act,   directing   to   set   aside   the   successive
appointments   and   promotion   of   the   appellant.     In   pursuance
thereof, the appellant’s service came to be terminated vide order
dated 7 th
  March, 2014.   Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant
filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   of   Allahabad.     The
High Court of Allahabad vide impugned order dated 25 th
 March,
3

2014, dismissed the Writ Petition No.17066 of 2014.  Aggrieved
thereby, the present appeal.
8. We   have   heard   Ms.   Neela   Gokhale,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the  appellant   and   Mr.   Gaurav   Agarwal,
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   Respondent­
University.
9. The Hon’ble Chancellor, while finding that the appellant’s
appointment   was   not   legal,   has   observed   that   the   Selection
Committee to be constituted under Section 31(4)(a) of   the 1973
Act   was required to have three experts to be nominated by the
Hon’ble Chancellor. The  Hon’ble Chancellor   found  that   neither
the University sent the requisition for nomination of the subject
experts   nor   he   had   appointed   any   subject   experts.       It   was
therefore   found   that   the   selection   which   was   contrary   to   the
provisions of Section 31 of  the 1973 Act,  was not sustainable in
law.    
10. Undisputedly,   even   when   the   appellant   was   appointed   as
a   lecturer   in   the   year   2002   vide   order   dated   28 th
  February,
4

2002, he had responded to the advertisement and his selection
was done after the selection procedure as prescribed under the
1973   Act   was   followed.       Insofar   as   the   post   of   Reader   is
concerned, an advertisement was specifically issued for the said
post.     The   appellant   had   applied   in   response   to   the   said
advertisement.     The   Selection   Committee   having   two   subject
experts, interviewed him.   After  finding  him  to be suitable, the
Executive   Council   of   the   University   accepted   the
recommendation   of   the   Selection   Committee   and   only
thereafter, the appellant was appointed.   It could thus be seen
that the selection of the appellant was done after following  the
selection procedure as prescribed by the 1973 Act.   
11. A   perusal   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor
would   reveal   that   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor   has   observed   that
after   year   2001,   the   University   had   not   sought   nomination   for
panel of experts.   
12. A   further   perusal   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Hon’ble
Chancellor   would   reveal   that   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor   had
5

forwarded the names of the following persons in response to the
letter of the Vice­Chancellor dated 25 th
 May, 2001:­ 
1.  Prof. S.K. Lunkad, Kurukshetra University, Haryana.
2. Prof. N.K. Singh, Patna University, Bihar.
3. Prof. V.K. Verma, University of Delhi.
4. Prof. S. Mukherjee, University of Calcutta (WB)
5. Prof. Y.P. Gupta, University of Jammu (J&K)
13. Perusal   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor
itself would reveal that the Selection Committee, which selected
the   appellant   for   the   post  of   Reader,  consisted   of  the   following
members:­
1. Prof. Ramesh Chandra – Vice­Chancellor/Chairman.
2. Prof. S.K. Lunkad – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.
3. Prof. Y.P. Gupta – Chancellor’s Nominee/Expert.
4. Prof. S.P. Singh – HOD & Dean Faculty of Science.
5. Shri V.K. Sinha – Registrar/Secretary.
14. It could thus be seen that Prof. S.K. Lunkad and Prof. Y.P.
Gupta,   who   were   nominated   by   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor   vide
communication dated 13 th
  July, 2001, were very much there in
the Selection Committee.   
15. It   can   thus   clearly   be   seen   that   the   Selection   Committee
consisted   of   two   Chancellor’s   nominees.     In   any   case,   if   fresh
6

nominations   were   not   sought   for   by   the   University   from   the
Hon’ble Chancellor, the appellant cannot be faulted with.   It is
a   matter   of   fact   that   the   appellant   came   to   be   appointed   after
undergoing   entire   selection   process   as   required   under   the
statute.       The   order   passed   by   the   Hon’ble   Chancellor   itself
would reveal that the two Chancellor’s nominees were available
in the Selection Committee which selected the appellant.
16. In that view of the matter, we find that the order dated 3 rd
March, 2014, passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated
7 th
  March, 2014, passed by the Registrar of the University and
the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   are   not
sustainable in law.   There is no finding in the impugned order
of   the   High   Court   that   the   appellant   does   not   possess   the
requisite qualification.  The appellant had served for a period of
12 years before the order directing his termination was passed
by the Hon’ble Chancellor.  In that view of the matter, we are of
the considered view that the termination of the appellant is not
sustainable in law. 
7

17. We   are   informed   that   during   the   pendency   of   the   appeal,
the   appellant   has   already   superannuated.   We   will,   therefore,
have to accordingly mould the relief.   
18. It   is   also   stated   at   the   bar   that   in   view   of   the   order   of
status quo passed by this court on 9 th
 May, 2014, the appellant
still   continues   to  occupy   the   University  accommodation.     After
superannuating,   the   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   continue   with
the said accommodation.
19. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The   order   dated   3 rd
  March,   2014,   passed   by   the
Hon’ble Chancellor, the order dated 7 th
 March, 2014,
passed   by   the   Registrar   of   the   University   and   the
impugned   order   dated   25 th
  March,   2014,   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Allahabad   are   quashed   and   set
aside.
(iii) Since   the   termination   of   the   appellant   is   set   aside,
the   appellant   would   be   entitled   for   all   the   terminal
8

benefits   treating   the   period   between   the   date   of
termination and the date of retirement as a period in
continuous   service.         However,   the   appellant   would
not   be   entitled   for   back   wages   for   the   period   during
which he was out of employment.   
(iv) All   the   terminal   benefits   to   which   the   appellant   is
entitled, shall be paid to him within a period of three
months from today.
(v) The   appellant   is   directed   to   handover   vacant   and
peaceful possession of the University accommodation
in   his   occupation   within   a   period   of   three   months
from today.  
20. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed   of.
There shall be no order as to costs. 
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 10, 2022.
9