# Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 115
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-16
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 219 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-dipanwita-singh-roy-v-union-of-india-ors-54822
- **Pages:** 35

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 108,416. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
115

33. Apart from the above, the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has
categorically held that supply of grounds to the person being arrested is a constitutional mandate
and is not a mere procedural formality and thus a writ alleging violation of fundamental rights
would be maintainable and the Court may not have any discretion to refuse the same if the
allegation of violation of fundamental rights is found to be correct, as in the instant case. From the
discussion as aforesaid, it is clearly demonstrated that the arresting officer has not complied with
the mandatory provisions provided in BNSS and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) while arresting and producing the arrestee before the learned
Magistrate/Court concerned for remand, therefore, the arrest of arrestee is bad in the eyes of law,
hence, judicial remand granted by the Court for the petitioner upon an illegal arrest, cannot be
termed as valid.

34. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature
of habeas corpus is issued declaring the arrest of the petitioner as illegal. The remand order dated
29.01.2026 being consequential to the illegal arrest, is also set aside. The petitioner be set free
provided he is not wanted in any other case

35. However, it would be open for the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

36. The records i.e the Case Diary Nos. CD 1 to CD 13 have been returned back to the learned
AGAs after being perused.

37. The Court records the assistance rendered by Mr. Mohd Azam Siddiqui, Research
Associate of this Court.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 115
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 219 of 2025

Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Legality of invoking emergency power by the Vice Chancellor without getting approval of Executive Council
and without explaining the circumstances of urgency to invoke emergency power.
(2) Validity of Selection Committee, consisting of members having expertise in Bharatnatyam stream different
from the Katthak stream for which the selection is to be held.
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(3) Validity of selection process, in which a candidate was allowed to participate in preparation of list of
External Expert of the Selection Committee in the light of principle of biasness.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Career Advancement Scheme - Promotion - Post of Professor (Academic level -
14) - Selection Committee - In the absence of Executive Council, the Vice Chancellor constituted
Selection Committee by invoking emergency power - No approval of Executive Council was
taken - No opinion regarding existence of urgency was formed by the Vice Chancellor - Effect :
(E-1)
Held : Though, Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915 requires decision of the Vice Chancellor to be placed before
the authority in the next meeting, who in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter, but the
intention behind conferring the emergency power is an exception to the general power and should be
exercised in the manner prescribed under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915, therefore, before taking any
decision to invoke emergency power under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915, there has to be an opinion of the
Vice Chancellor formed on the basis of material on record that emergency is such, which requires immediate
action to be taken, and if no action is taken, that would be prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the
University or any wing of the University - The respondent has not placed any opinion of the Vice Chancellor
that the emergency is such that if, emergency power under Section 7C (5) is not invoked, and if no action is
taken, this would be prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the University or any wing of the University.
[Para 66]
(B) Service law - Career Advancement Scheme - Promotion - Post of Professor for the field of
Katthak stream of Dance - Three members Selection Committee consisted of two members,
having no expert knowledge of Katthak stream, but of Bharatnatyam stream - Legality of the
constitution of Selection Committee was challenged : (E-1)
Held : Statute 27(b) provides for constitution of Selection Committee - It provides that the Expert should
have special knowledge of the subject with which the person to be appointed, meaning thereby the Expert
should possess special knowledge of the subject in which the person is to be appointed - It will undoubtedly
refer to the Subject Expert nominated by the Executive Council who has special knowledge in the subject in
which the person is to be appointed - In the case in hand, both the candidates namely, appellant and
respondent no. 6 are the candidates to be appointed in Katthak stream as both of them have special
knowledge of Katthak Dance and as there is no subject in the name of 'Dance', therefore, the Subject Expert
cannot have any special knowledge in the subject of 'Dance'. This means that the candidates are to be
appointed in the subject in which they have expertise which in the instant case is 'Katthak' as both the
candidates, namely, appellant and respondent no. 6 have specialization in Katthak Dance - Inclusion of two
expert members namely, Dr. Aarti H. Shetty and Dr. Uma Rele who have expertise in Bharatnatyam and have
no expertise in Katthak would render the constitution of Selection Committee bad. [Para 90, 91, 107, 108 and
120]
(C) Service law - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Selection process -Principle of biasness -
Applicability - Respondent no. 6, a candidate under Career Advancement Scheme, participated in
preparation of list of External Expert of Selection Committee, and experts from this list of
External Experts were the members of Selection Committee, who selected the respondent no. 6
- Permissibility : (E-1)
Held : There is every likelihood of bias in participation of such expert members in the Selection Committee.
Therefore, we find that there is an element of bias in the selection process. Thus, for this reason also, we find
that selection of respondent no. 6 is vitiated. [Para 127]
(D) Interpretation of Statute - Cardinal rule of interpretation - Application - Held, when the
Statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner only
and not in any other manner. [Para 62] (E-1)
(E) Interpretation of Statute - Purposive construction - Application - Held, statute should be
interpreted in a manner so as to achieve the object and purpose of the Statute for which it has
been legislated. [Para 110] (E-1)
(F) Principle of estoppel - Applicability - Held, there cannot be any estoppel against a Statute.
[Para 119] (E-1)
2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
117
Case Law Cited
Gauhati University and others vs. State of Assam & Others, 2017 (5) Gauhati Law Reports 427; Dr. Triloki
Nath Singh vs. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra & Others, 1990 (4) SCC 510; Dr. (Mrs.) Kalpana Sinha vs. Union of
India & Others, 2015 SCC OnLine Patna 5269; Writ A No. 12176 of 2024, Dr. Monika Bansal vs. Union of India
& Others; A.K. Kraipak & Others vs. Union of India & Others, 1969 (2) SCC 262; Writ A No.19427 of 2023
(Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg vs. Union of India and Others; Opto Circuit India Limited Vs. Axis Bank & Others
2021 (6) SCC 707; Union of India & Others vs. Mahendra Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909; Employees State
Insurance Corporation vs. Union of India & Others, 2022 (11) SCC 392 - referred to.

List of Acts
Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 - S. 7-C (5); First Statute of BHU - Statute 27 (b).

List of Keywords
Appointment, Probation, Career Advancement Scheme, Promotion, Selection Committee, Academic
qualification, Subject of Katthak, External expert, Principle of bias, Specialization in Katthak, Emergency
power, Principle of estoppel, Approval of Executive Council, Nomination of expert members, Guidelines,
Interest of university, Purpose of processing of valuation, Dance, Katthak stream, Bharatnatyam stream,
Element of bias.

Case Arising From
Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2025 passed in Writ A No. 4884 of 2024.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.; Mohd. Yasin, Shiv Baboo Singh, Shivendu Ojha, Siddharth
Khare.
Advs. for the Respondents : Anant Kumar Tiwari, Amit Sinha, Ashish Kumar Srivastava.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel
for the appellant, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Amit Sinha,
learned counsel for respondent-Banaras Hindu University and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for private respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order of learned Single Judge
dated 18.02.2025 passed in Writ-A No.4884 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, who was petitioner in Writ-A No.4884 of 2024 before
the learned Single Judge.

3. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that appellant was initially appointed as
Assistant Professor (Katthak) at Punjabi University, Patiala vide order dated 27.02.2009 (English
translation of the appointment letter is enclosed with the writ petition). The appointment letter
indicates that the post on which the appellant was appointed was Lecturer in the Department of
Dance at Punjabi University, Patiala.The appellant pursuant to the Advertisement No.07/2014-15
issued by the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the BHU) inviting
applications for several teaching posts including the post of Associate Professor (Dance) carrying
Post Code No.2730 applied for appointment as Associate Professor.
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. The petitioner after having gone through the process of selection was selected as Associate
Professor (Dance) by appointment order dated 03.10.2015 issued by the Deputy Registrar
(Recruitment and Assessment Cell). The appellant in pursuance of the said appointment order
joined as Associate Professor in the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts, BHU,
Varanasi. The appointment of the appellant was on probation for a period of one year. The
appellant was subsequently confirmed as Associate Professor by the order of Deputy Registrar
(Admin.-Teaching) dated 22.02.2017.

5. The appellant while working as Associate Professor was also appointed as Head of the
Department of Dance for the period of three years on rotational basis by order dated 23.11.2019
issued by the Assistant Registrar (General Administration). Presently, the appellant is working as
Associate Professor in the Academic Level-13A.

6. On 01.09.2023, a Notification was issued by the Deputy Registrar of the BHU inviting
applications on or before 30.09.2023 for consideration of promotion under Career Advancement
Scheme to different academic levels including promotion to the post of Professor (Academic Level14).

7. The appellant being eligible, applied in pursuance to the aforesaid Notification in the
prescribed form. After requisite processing, the appellant was required to appear before the
Selection Committee on 04.01.2024. The appellant appeared before the Selection Committee on the
said date.

8. As per the averments made in the writ petition, there does not exist any Executive Council
in the BHU for the past almost two years, due to which, the Vice Chancellor has been passing
orders on the recommendations of the Selection Committee at his level.

9. The appellant being aggrieved by the constitution of Selection Committee, which did not
include external experts for the subject in consideration, filed a representation on 01.03.2024 before
the Vice Chancellor of the BHU.

10. As per the case in the writ petition, respondent no.6-Dr. Vidhi Nagar was appointed as
Lecturer in Dance (Katthak) by appointment order dated 02.11.2006 in pursuance to the
Advertisement No. 2/2005-06. Subsequently, the respondent no.6 was appointed as Associate
Professor by an order dated 30.09.2015 in pursuance of the Advertisement No.07/2014-15 with
regard to post bearing Post Code-2730.

11. The appellant and respondent no. 6 both are discharging duties in the discipline of Katthak
Dance. The qualifications and experience of appellant and respondent no.6 are in the speciality of
Katthak Dance. According to the appellants case, neither the appellant nor respondent no.6 has
any academic qualification or experience in Bharatnatyam.

12. Challenge to the constitution of Selection Committee has been laid by the appellant in the
writ petition on three grounds noted below:-
2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
119

(i). In the absence of Executive Council, the Vice Chancellor had no authority to
constitute Selection Committee and nominate subject experts which can only be nominated by the
Executive Council as provided under Statute 27 of the First Statute of BHU.

(ii). The post on which the selection is to be made was on a subject of Katthak in the
Department of Dance whereas the subject experts nominated by the Vice Chancellor were not in
the field of Katthak.

(iii). The respondent no.6 was herself an applicant for selection of Professor Level-14
under Career Advancement Scheme and was involved in forwarding the names of external experts,
who participated in the selection proceedings, and thus, the selection proceedings are vitiated on
the principle of bias.

13. In the aforesaid backdrop, the appellant prayed for the following relief in the writ petition:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to
produce the recommendations of the selection committee which met on 04.01.2024 for promotion
as Professor (Academic Level - 14), in the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts,
Banaras Hindu University and to quash the same.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the respondent from
undertaking any proceedings in pursuance to the recommendations of the selection committee
which met on 04.01.2024 for promotion as Professor (Academic Level-14), Department of Dance,
Faculty of Performing Arts, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to
reconvene a meeting of selection committee for consideration of the petitioner for promotion as
Professor (Academic Level-14) after including therein the external expert in the subject/field of
Kathak Dance within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(v) Award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition "

14. A counter affidavit has been filed by the BHU denying the averments made in the writ
petition stating inter alia that the list of External Subject Experts, Department of Dance, Faculty of
Performing Arts, BHU has been forwarded by the respondent no.6 in the capacity of Head of the
Department. It is stated that the Departmental Policy Planning Committee (hereinafter referred to
as 'DPPC') of the Department of Dance in its meeting held on 17.07.2023 prepared the list of
External Subject Experts in which the appellant was not present due to sabbatical leave. It is further
stated that the DPPC submits a list of panel of members to the Selection Committee on the basis of
experience. The respondent no.6 was the Head of the Department and others including the
appellant are the members of the DPPC. Since, the appellant was on sabbatical leave, therefore, she
did not attend the meeting.
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The respondent no.6, being the Head, in the capacity of Chairperson of the DPPC
forwarded the panel to the Dean for further necessary action.

16. It is stated that list of panel of said Experts was submitted by the DPPC. It is further stated
that the 'subject/field' for which the Selection Committee met on 04.01.2024 was 'subject/field' of
Dance, and not specifically Bharatnatyam, Katthak or any other dance form. Further case of the
BHU is that there is no categorisation of imparting teaching work in the Department of Dance.

17. It is further stated that the appellant was initially appointed as Associate Professor of
Dance. Since, there is a common syllabus for all specific fields of Dance, therefore, respondent
no.6 and appellant have been specifically conducting classes in Katthak Dance in that particular
semester which was not confined only to Katthak but they can also impart classes in other fields of
Dance.

18. It is also stated that Vice Chancellor nominated three Experts out of the panel of the names
approved by him in terms of Section 7C(5) of the BHU Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act, 1915')

19. The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of BHU denying the
averments made in the counter affidavit.

20. The respondent no.6 also filed counter affidavit contending inter alia that she did not
perform any role of choosing External Experts because there were other members of the Committee
of DPPC and all the members chose the list of Experts which was duly signed by the Dean, Faculty
of Performing Arts, BHU. It is further stated that the final selection of Experts was in the hands of
the Chairman of the Selection Committee i.e. Vice Chancellor. The respondent no.6 denied that she
had any role in preparing or finalizing the list of external experts.

21. The learned Single Judge held that the Vice Chancellor under Section 7C(5) of the Act,
1915 has power to nominate the Selection Committee in emergency. He further held that the
Selection Committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor after receiving the directions from the
Ministry of Education vide letter dated 06.01.2023.

22. On the contention of the appellant that the Subject Experts nominated by the Vice
Chancellor were not in the field of Katthak Dance, whereas the post is in the subject of Katthak
Dance in the Department of Dance, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant herself was
appointed as Associate Professor in the Department of Dance without any specialization in Katthak
or Bharatnatyam, therefore, under the Career Advancement Scheme, there was no requirement of
External Experts being an expert of Katthak. Consequently, the second contention was also rejected
by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid reasoning.

23. So far as the contention of the appellant that respondent no.6 was instrumental in
preparation of list of External Experts, learned Single Judge held that since the Vice Chancellor has
selected the External Experts from the list of 20 External Experts, therefore, merely because the list
2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
121
of External Experts was forwarded by the respondent no.6, the constitution of Selection Committee
cannot be said to be vitiated.

24. Challenging the order of learned Single Judge, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in holding that the Vice
Chancellor could invoke the emergency power under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915 to appoint
panel of experts. He submits that the decision of the Vice Chancellor as per Section 7C(5) of the
Act, 1915 is to be validated by the Executive Council in the next meeting, and since in the instant
case, the Executive Council was not in existence, therefore, action of the Vice Chancellor in
appointing panel of experts is de hors Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915.

25. He further submits that it was not a case which required invocation of emergency power
by the Vice Chancellor under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915 inasmuch as under the Career
Advancement Scheme, there is no post and it is only an upgradation on the post on which the
candidate is working. He further contends that the promotion under Career Advancement Scheme
is personal to the candidate and the promotion is given from the date of eligibility of the candidate,
which is also evident from the order of promotion of respondent no.6 that she has been granted
benefit of Career Advancement Scheme w.e.f. 30.09.2018, therefore, there was no urgency in the
instant case for the Vice Chancellor to invoke the emergency powers under Section 7C(5) of the
Act, 1915.

26. He submits that the Statute 11A of the Statute of BHU provides constitution of Policy and
Planning Committee. The appellants case is covered under Clause (1) (b) & (3) (e) of the Statute
11A. He submits that Clause (1) (b) of the Statute 11A provides for the constitution of Policy and
Planning Committee (PPC) for small Department, and Clause (3) (e) provides that the terms of
reference of the PPC shall be recommending a list of experts to the Vice Chancellor who may
place the same before the Executive Council, therefore, the presence of Executive Council is
necessary for two reasons; one for approving the panel of Experts and other for appointing outside
panel Experts.

27. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the absence of Executive Council in the BHU, the
constitution of Selection Committee and Subject Experts is bad in law in view of Statute 27 of the
First Statute of BHU. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the judgement in the case of
Gauhati University and others Vs State of Assam & Others, 2017 (5) Gauhati Law Reports 427.

28. He further contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in concluding that since
the appointment is being made in the Department of Dance Faculty of Performing Arts without
specifying any specialisation in Katthak or Bharatnatyam, inasmuch as there does not exist any
generic subject like Dance.

29. He contends that only two dance forms namely, Katthak and Bharatnatyam are taught in
the Department of Dance. He contends that prior to appointment as Associate Professor in BHU,
the appellant had functioned as Lecturer in Katthak at Punjabi University Patiala, and after
appointment as Associate Professor in the Department of Dance at BHU, the appellant has been
teaching Katthak. He further submits that since, the appointment has been made on the post of
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Professor in the stream of Katthak, therefore, the panel Expert should have been from the Katthak
stream.

30. He submits that Selection Committee constituted for selection was bad in law, inasmuch as
out of three Experts, two Experts namely, Dr. Arti H. Shetty and Dr. Uma Rele were exponent of
Bharatnatyam and did not have any academic qualification and teaching experience or expertise in
Katthak Dance.

31. He contends that so far as the third member of the Selection Committee, namely, Dr.
Kamalini Asthana is concerned, she was not eligible to be member of the Selection Committee for
the reason that she is neither known to have any academic qualification in Katthak nor did she hold
the post of Professor or a post equivalent thereto as was a mandatory condition specified in the
communication of the Joint Registrar (Recruitment and Assessment Cell) dated 03.07.2023.

32. In this respect he has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Dr. Triloki Nath Singh Vs. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra & Others, 1990 (4) SCC 510 & Dr. (Mrs.)
Kalpana Sinha Vs. Union of India & Others, 2015 SCC OnLine Patna 5269.

33. He contends that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in placing reliance upon the
judgement of this Court in the case of Dr. Monika Bansal Vs. Union of India & Others passed in
Writ-A No.12176 of 2024.

34. He lastly contends that the Selection Committee is vitiated for the reason that the
respondent no.6, who was an applicant and candidate, was instrumental in preparation of the list of
External Experts. It is contended that it is a case of bias as the respondent no.6 admittedly was
involved in the preparation of panel of Experts, and had forwarded the list of Experts to the Vice
Chancellor. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case
of A.K. Kraipak & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 1969 (2) SCC 262.

35. Rebutting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents would contend
that in the instant case, learned Single Judge has given elaborate reasons in concluding that the
Vice Chancellor has rightly invoked the emergency powers under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915
which are not unfettered but are subject to checks and balances.

36. He submits that if the Vice Chancellor on the material on record forms an opinion to
invoke emergency power under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915, the Vice Chancellor is well within
his right to constitute the Selection Committee in exercise of emergency power under Section
7C(5) of the Act, 1915, and the decision of the Vice Chancellor is subject to the approval by the
Executive Council in the next meeting. He submits that this Court in Writ-A No.18332 of 2023 has
issued a direction to the Vice Chancellor to invoke emergency powers under Section 7C(5) of the
Act, 1915 to constitute a Selection Committee for promoting the petitioner under Career
Advancement Scheme. He further submits that the judgement in Writ-A No.18332 of 2023 has
been affirmed by this Court in Special Appeal No.788 of 2024, and therefore, no illegality has been
committed by the Vice Chancellor in invoking power under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915 to
constitute the Selection Committee and finalize the selection.
2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
123

37. So far as the constitution of Selection Committee is concerned, he submits that the
appellant has been appointed as Associate Professor in the Department of Dance, Faculty of
Performing Arts carrying Post Code 2730 pursuant to the Advertisement No.07/2014-15, and since,
there was no specification/specialization mentioned against the post on which the petitioner was
appointed as Associate Professor, therefore, there is no illegality in the constitution of Selection
Committee as the appellant's appointment is in the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing
Arts.

38. He submits that in the Department of Dance various subjects are taught which the
appellant is to teach, and Katthak is one of the subject amongst other subjects which the appellant
is to teach, therefore, it is not necessary that the members of the Selection Committee should
belong to stream of Katthak.

39. He contends that Professor Dr. Uma Rele having specialization in Bharatnatyam
interviewed the appellant during selection as Associate Professor, therefore, the appellant's
contention that the Selection Committee should consist of the Experts of Katthak stream is
misconceived and not sustainable in law. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the judgement
in the case of Dr. Monika Bansal (supra).

40. Lastly, he contends that merely because the respondent no.6 forwarded the names of
Expert of panel to the Vice Chancellor that would not vitiate the selection proceeding inasmuch
panel of Experts is selected by the DPPC, therefore, the contention of the appellant in this regard is
also misconceived. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the
Bunch of petitions leading of which is Writ-A No.19427 of 2023 (Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs.
Union of India and Others).

41. Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 states that he also adopts the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the University. However, he submits that principles of
estoppel would apply in the instant case because of the conduct of the appellant.

42. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

43. The facts have already been delineated above, therefore, they are not being reiterated to
unnecessarily burden the judgement. Accordingly, we proceed to deal with the arguments raised by
the learned counsel of respective parties.

44. Now coming to the first submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that it is
not a case where Vice Chancellor should have invoked his emergency powers under Section 7C (5)
of the Act, 1915, it would be apt to reproduce Section 7C (5) of the Act, 1915:-

"7C. Powers and duties of Vice-Chancellor.

(1)......
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2)......

(3)......

(4)...

(5) If, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, any emergency has arisen which requires
immediate action to be taken, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action as he deems necessary and
shall report the same for approval at the next meeting to the authority which, in the ordinary course,
would have dealt with the matter:

Provided that, if the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor is not approved by the authority
concerned, he may refer the matter to the Visitor, whose decision thereon shall be final:

Provided further that, where any such action taken by the Vice-Chancellor affects any
person in the service of the University, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within thirty days
from the date on which he receives notice of such action, an appeal to the executive Council.

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be prescribed by the
Statutes, the Ordinances or the Regulations."

45. Now, the question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the opinion
formed by the Vice Chancellor that in the present case there exists an emergency, which requires
invocation of emergency power of the Vice Chancellor and as to whether the decision of Vice
Chancellor to invoke emergency power is based upon proper appreciation of facts on record.

46. It is not in dispute that Executive Council does not exist in the BHU for the last two years.
It is also not in dispute that selection was held for the grant of benefit of Career Advancement
Scheme. In Career Advancement Scheme, there is no post, and it is only an upgradation on the post
on which a candidate is working and candidate will be promoted from the date of eligibility. The
said fact is also evident from the promotion order of respondent no.6 which reflects that the
respondent no.6 has been promoted with effect from 30.09.2018. So the delay in not extending the
benefit of Career Advancement Scheme do not prejudice the rights of a candidate eligible for the
benefit under Career Advancement Scheme.

47. The Statute as well as Ordinance provides that Vice Chancellor after receiving the list of
panel of Experts shall place the same before the Executive Council for its approval. Further, the
approval of Executive Council is necessary for appointment of outside panel Experts.

48. Statute 11A of the BHU prescribes formation of Policy and Planning Committee (PPC),
which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"11A. POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

(1) The Policy and Planning Committee (PPC) shall consist of:
2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
125

(a) For a large department (containing ten or more teachers):

(i) Two senior most teachers of the Department;

(ii) The present Head of the Department (Convener)

(iii) The past Head of the Department, preceding the present Head;

(iv) The teacher likely to be appointed as the next Head; after the expiry of the terms of
the present Head;

(b) For a small department (containing less than ten teachers):

(i) The past Head of the Department, preceding the present Head;

(ii) The present Head of the Department (Convener)

(iii) The teacher likely to be appointed as the next Head after the expiry of the term of the
present Head.

NOTE 1: The programme Coordinator of Centre of Advanced Study/Special Assistance
Programme etc., be included in the PPC.

NOTE 2: Whenever the required number of teachers for filling the composition of the
Policy & Planning Committee is not available or on account of non eligibility, the Vice-Chancellor
may nominate any teacher of the Faculty.

NOTE 3: For the Departments as specified at (a) and (b) above-Institute of Medical
Sciences shall have representation to super-specialties.

(2) The Head of the Department shall consult the "PPC" and take action only after the
decisions are taken by the "PPC".

(3) The terms of reference of the PPC shall be:

(a) taking decisions in all policy matters which effect the long-term growth of the
Department keeping in view the requirements of continuity and stability and steady and consistent
development;

(b) formulating and finalizing five-year plan proposals and other development plans;

(c) selecting thrust areas for development and for research;

(d) formulating the qualifications for the posts to be advertised including specifying the
specializations, if any;
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(e) recommending a list of experts to the Vice-Chancellor who may place the same before
the Executive Council;

(f) finalizing the equipment to be purchased out of capital grants and their allotment to
different laboratories in the Department;

(g) preparing the Annual Report, maintaining an up-to-date information regarding the
departmental activities, achievements and other statistical data; and

(h) taking policy decisions on all matters pertaining to discipline and smooth working of
the department.

NOTE: In order to ensure the effective working of the Policy and Planning Committee of
the Departments all recommendations sent by the Heads of the Departments with respect to Policy
and Planning matters to various functionaries of the University be accompanied by a copy of the
Resolution passed by the Policy and Planning Committee concerned in respect of recommendations
made.

49. Clause-4 of the Ordinance governing the procedure to be followed by the Selection
Committee in making recommendations for appointment against the posts of Professor, Associate
Professor and Assistant Professor and such other posts as are declared teaching posts by the
Academic Council under the provisions of Statute 27 (2) of the Act, 1915 and Statutes provide for
nomination of expert members to serve on Selection Committee..

50. According to Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, Statute 11A(1) (b) is applicable in
the present case and placing reliance upon said Statute, he contends that PPC shall consist of the
persons mentioned in (i), (ii) (iii) of the said Statute. He further submits that as per Statute 11A (3)
(e), the terms of reference of PPC shall be recommending a list of experts to the Vice Chancellor
who may place the same before the Executive Council.

51. He further contends that Clause 4(a) of the Ordinance mandates the Vice Chancellor to
place the list of expert members for all disciplines recommended by the PPC of the Departments
and collected from other sources before the Executive Council for it's consideration and approval.
He further contends that Clause 4(b) of the Ordinance further makes it obligatory upon the Vice
Chancellor to ordinarily invite Experts for attending the meeting of Selection Committee from the
panel approved by the Executive Council, and if the Vice Chancellor finds that there is a special
urgency, he may make additions to the panel and report the same to the Executive Council.

52. In the counter affidavit filed by the BHU, it is averred that in compliance of the
Notification dated 03.07.2023, the Head of Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts of the
BHU provided the names of External Experts through its DPPC as per rules, then the Vice
Chancellor nominated three Experts out of panel of names approved by him in terms of Section 7C
(5) of the Act, 1915. In this regard, paragraph nos.17 and 18 of the counter affidavit filed by the
BHU are being reproduced herein below:-
2 All. Dr. Dipanwita Singh Roy Vs. Union of India & Ors.
127

"17. That the contents of paragraph no.29 of the writ petition as stated are not admitted
hence denied. In reply it is stated that in compliance of the notification dated 03.07.2023, the Head
of the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts, Banaras Hindu University provided the
names of External Experts through its Departmental Policy Planning Committee as per rules. Then,
the respondent no.3 nominated the three Experts out of the panel of names approved by him in
terms of Section 7-C(5) of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915.

18. That the contents of paragraphs no.30 and 31 of the writ petition are not admitted as
stated. In reply it is stated that the three External Experts in the Department of Dance, Faulty of
Performing Arts were nominated by the Vice-Chancellor by exercising the power vested in him
under Section 7C(5) of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915. The interview for the post of
Assistant Professor (Academic Level-10) and Associate Professor (Academic Level-13A) under the
Direct Recruitment as well as for promotion as Professor (Academic Level-14) under Career
Advancement Scheme was held accordingly. The recommendation of the selection committee in
respect of the promotion under Career Advancement Scheme for various Departments of the
University including the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts, is still under sealed
cover. It is pertinent to mention here that the Vice-Chancellor has nominated three External Experts
for direct recruitment as well as for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme under the
subject of Dance."

53. Perusal of Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915 reveals that Vice Chancellor is to form an
opinion that emergency is such which requires immediate action to be taken.

54. No material has been placed on record to indicate that for invoking power under Section
7C(5) of the Act, 1915, any opinion has been formed by the Vice Chancellor on the basis of
material on record indicating that urgency is such which requires immediate action.

55. So far as the letter of Ministry of Education dated 06.01.2023 on which reliance has been
placed by the learned counsel for the respondents to support the decision of Vice Chancellor to
invoke power under Section 7C(5) of the Act, 1915 is concerned, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the letter dated 06.01.2023:-

"Government of India

Ministry of Education

Department of Higher Education

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

Dated: 06.01.2023

To,

The Vice Chancellor

Banaras Hindu University (BHU),

Varanasi-221005,

Uttar Pradesh
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Subject: Permission of opening the envelopes containing the recommendations of
Selection Committee for promotion of faculty members In Banaras Hindu University-reg.

Sir.

I am directed to refer to BHU's letter No. VC/532 dated 17.12.2022 on the subject
mentioned above and to say that Section 7(5) of the BHU Act, 1915 provides that:

"....if, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor any emergency has arisen which requires
immediate action to be taken, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action as he deems necessary and
shall report the same action for approval at the next meeting to the authority which, in the ordinary
course, would have dealt with the matter."

You are therefore requested to take necessary action in terms of Section 7(5) of the BHU
Act, 1915.

This issues with the approval of the competent authority."

56.