NDLI: Dinesh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Service Law: Appointment
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law: Appointment – Appellant was engaged by Respondent-University as ‘Guest lecturer’ to teach ‘Karam Kand’ to the students in the Department of Sanskrit – University issued an advertisement inviting application to one post of lecturer in ‘Karam Kand’ – Appellant applied for the post – Selection Committee recommended the candidature of appellant for appointment to said post – But the Executive Council disagreed with the Selection Committee on the ground that the Vice Chancellor failed to request the Chancellor to nominate subject experts in the Selection Committee – Accordingly, Chancellor annuled the recommendation for appointment of appellant – Appellant filed writ petition which was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Chancellor on the ground that admittedly there was no University in the country awarding a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and, therefore, there were actually no experts in the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ – Pursuant to the direction, the Chancellor considered the matter and again rejected the recommendation of Selection Committee – Appellant filed fresh writ petition – By impugned order, High Court dismissed writ petition holding that after the order of remand, the Chancellor had consulted a few experts and found that the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ is altogether different from the subject ‘Sanskrit’ and that therefore, with the qualifications that the appellant possessed, he could not be appointed – On appeal, held: The consultations by the Chancellor with certain persons and the information gathered by him were beyond the scope of order of remand passed by High Court – The information collected by the Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection of the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the appellant – In the absence of any specific prescription, the University ought to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects, before the process of selection began – Neither the University nor the Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant was not qualified in the “relevant subject” – Their initial objection was that the Selection Committee did not include the subject experts nominated by the Chancellor – After it was pointed out that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as no University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the Chancellor – The Chancellor went on a detour to find out what are the differences between the subject of Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ – This was clearly erroneous – The parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from the parameters to be applied to a case where no specific qualifications are prescribed for a particular post – The question as to what constitutes “relevant subject” should have been left to the experts, before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes did not prescribe any specific qualifications – This did not happen in this case – In fact the question whether subject experts were available at all in ‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy – The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice Chancellor, making the appellant a victim in the line of fire – Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this – In the case on hand no candidate was available with a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found the appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject – The appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit – In view of the fact (i) that the appellant has been teaching the very same subject for the past nearly 16 years; and (ii) that the original Selection Committee which found him eligible for appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department of Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part, a direction issued to respondent-University to regularise the services of the appellant.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 339
Petitioner	Dinesh Chandra Shukla
Respondent	State Of U.p. & Ors.
SCR	[2022] 1 S.C.R. 813
Judgement Date	2022-03-24
Case Number	1913

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dinesh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of U.p. Vs. Chunni Lal & Ors.

Chandra Parkash Shahi Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Kumari Laxmi Saroj & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Surendra Prasad Shukla Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.

Hira Man Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

State of U.p. and Ors. Vs. Smt. Gulaichi

Dinesh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of U.p. Vs. Chunni Lal & Ors.

Chandra Parkash Shahi Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Kumari Laxmi Saroj & Ors. Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.

Surendra Prasad Shukla Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam & Ors.

Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors.

Hira Man Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

State of U.p. and Ors. Vs. Smt. Gulaichi

Dinesh Chandra Shukla Vs. State of U.p. & Ors.