# Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1438
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-17
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 19427 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prof-dr-mujahid-beg-v-u-o-i-ors-53487
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Shashank
Shekhar Singh, Shyamal Narain, Siddharth
Khare, Siddharth Nandan, Syed Imran
Ibrahim, Syed Shahnawaz Shah, Vivek
Kumar Singh

A. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Sections 19(3) & 22 - Statute
of University - St. 2(1) - Post of ViceChancellor - Appointment - Short-listing
and recommendation of candidates by
Executive Council - Principle of election -
Applicability - How far merit can be taken
into consideration - Held, the members of
executive council were expected to choose
five best candidates out of those available
for
their
recommendation
to
the
University Court. Such shortlisting is by
cast of votes - The strict principles of
election are not applicable in the facts of
the present case as recommendation is
expected to be based upon the merits of
the candidate. (Para 46)
B. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Section 19 - Statute of
University - St. 2(1) - Post of ViceChancellor
- Appointment
- Visitor's
power - Scope - Nature of process -
whether election or selection - Held, the
Visitor
is
not
bound
by
the
recommendation made by the Executive
Council and the University Court and has
the discretion under Statute 2, not to
approve any of the persons recommended
by
the
Court
and
call
for
fresh
recommendation - The Visitor has to
consider appointing the Vice-Chancellor
from
the
panel
of
three
persons
recommended by the Court, from a panel
of five persons recommended by the
Executive Council. The appointment of
Vice-Chancellor, therefore, cannot be said
to be by way of election. (Para 47 and 48)
C. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Post of Vice-Chancellor -
Selection - Doctrine of bias - Applicability
- Held, appointment on the post of ViceChancellor was based on selection and not
election. Once that be so, the defence of
respondents/St. that concept of bias would
not be attracted cannot be accepted - As
appointment
based
on
selection
is
concerned, the concept of bias would clearly
be applicable. (Para 61 and 62)
D. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Post of Vice-Chancellor -
Selection - Participation of husband Prof.
Gulrej in the proceeding of Executive
Council, how far vitiate the selection of
wife for the post of Vice-Chancellor -
Held,
chairing
and
participation
of
Professor
Gulrez
in
the
process
of
recommendation
is
improper
-
Held
further, though, Prof. Gulrez Ahmad ought
not to have presided and participated in
the meeting of Executive Council and the
University Court, yet, considering the
nature of appointment process and the
limited recommendatory role of Executive
Council and University Court in making of
appointment of Vice-Chancellor, we are of
the considered view that participation of
Prof. Gulrez Ahmad in such proceedings
has not vitiated the selection proceedings
- High Court issued a directive to the
University to resolve, henceforth, not to
allow any spouse or close family member
to preside and participate any crucial
meeting concerning his/her close relative.
(Para 74, 75 and 88)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,909 of 66,230. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39909 for what follows._

1438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
irrelevant, truncated and flimsy material,
that could never be taken into consideration
to sustain the charge. Reliance placed on
the preliminary investigation report and the
statements recorded therein is also a course
of action manifestly illegal for the Inquiry
Officer to have adopted, given the nature of
the charge and the material otherwise
available about it.

32. The last submission advanced on
behalf of the Bank is that if the Branch
Manager and the Deputy Branch Manager were
not called by the Establishment, the petitioner
could have called them in his defence. The said
contention is stated to be rejected. The reason is
that, that stage would arrive after the
Establishment satisfactorily discharged their
burden to prove the charge, necessitating the
petitioner to produce evidence in his defence.
That stage never arrived in this case, in the
considered opinion of this Court.

33. In the circumstances, though the
impugned order cannot be sustained, we think
that an opportunity ought be given to the Bank,
if they so elect, to proceed afresh against the
petitioner by proving the case against him in an
inquiry to be held, bearing in mind the remarks
in this judgment. The charge-sheet and the
petitioner's reply would, of course, stand and
the inquiry, if pursued afresh, would proceed
from that stage onwards.

34. In the result, this petition succeeds
and stands allowed. The impugned orders dated
22.11.2022, 21.03.2023 and 12.05.2023 passed
by the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India,
Varanasi, the Deputy General Manager (ERD),
Union Bank of India, Mumbai and the General
Manager (Human Resource), Union Bank of
India, Mumbai, respectively, are hereby
quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in
service forthwith and paid his current salary
regularly. It will be open to the respondents to
proceed against the petitioner afresh on the
basis of the charge-sheet already issued to him
and his reply thereto, of course, considering
relevant evidence, bearing in mind the guidance
in this judgment. The question of arrears of
salary would depend upon the event in the
disciplinary proceedings. If, however, the
respondents do not elect to pursue fresh
proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner
would be entitled to 50% of his emoluments for
the period that he has remained out of service.

35. There shall be no order as to costs.

36. Let this order be communicated to
the Deputy General Manager (ERD), Union
Bank of India, Mumbai and the General
Manager (Human Resource), Union Bank of
India, Mumbai by the learned Registrar General
of this Court through the learned Registrar
General of the High Court of Bombay. Let this
order be also communicated to the Chief
Manager, Union Bank of India, Varanasi
through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Varanasi by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1438
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ - A No. 19427 of 2023
Connected With
Writ - A No. 16348 of 2024
And
Writ - A No. 21023 of 2023

Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Kunal Shah, Sankalp Narain, Sr. Adv.
5 All. Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1439
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Shashank
Shekhar Singh, Shyamal Narain, Siddharth
Khare, Siddharth Nandan, Syed Imran
Ibrahim, Syed Shahnawaz Shah, Vivek
Kumar Singh

A. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Sections 19(3) & 22 - Statute
of University - St. 2(1) - Post of ViceChancellor - Appointment - Short-listing
and recommendation of candidates by
Executive Council - Principle of election -
Applicability - How far merit can be taken
into consideration - Held, the members of
executive council were expected to choose
five best candidates out of those available
for
their
recommendation
to
the
University Court. Such shortlisting is by
cast of votes - The strict principles of
election are not applicable in the facts of
the present case as recommendation is
expected to be based upon the merits of
the candidate. (Para 46)
B. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Section 19 - Statute of
University - St. 2(1) - Post of ViceChancellor
- Appointment
- Visitor's
power - Scope - Nature of process -
whether election or selection - Held, the
Visitor
is
not
bound
by
the
recommendation made by the Executive
Council and the University Court and has
the discretion under Statute 2, not to
approve any of the persons recommended
by
the
Court
and
call
for
fresh
recommendation - The Visitor has to
consider appointing the Vice-Chancellor
from
the
panel
of
three
persons
recommended by the Court, from a panel
of five persons recommended by the
Executive Council. The appointment of
Vice-Chancellor, therefore, cannot be said
to be by way of election. (Para 47 and 48)
C. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Post of Vice-Chancellor -
Selection - Doctrine of bias - Applicability
- Held, appointment on the post of ViceChancellor was based on selection and not
election. Once that be so, the defence of
respondents/St. that concept of bias would
not be attracted cannot be accepted - As
appointment
based
on
selection
is
concerned, the concept of bias would clearly
be applicable. (Para 61 and 62)
D. Service Law - Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 - Post of Vice-Chancellor -
Selection - Participation of husband Prof.
Gulrej in the proceeding of Executive
Council, how far vitiate the selection of
wife for the post of Vice-Chancellor -
Held,
chairing
and
participation
of
Professor
Gulrez
in
the
process
of
recommendation
is
improper
-
Held
further, though, Prof. Gulrez Ahmad ought
not to have presided and participated in
the meeting of Executive Council and the
University Court, yet, considering the
nature of appointment process and the
limited recommendatory role of Executive
Council and University Court in making of
appointment of Vice-Chancellor, we are of
the considered view that participation of
Prof. Gulrez Ahmad in such proceedings
has not vitiated the selection proceedings
- High Court issued a directive to the
University to resolve, henceforth, not to
allow any spouse or close family member
to preside and participate any crucial
meeting concerning his/her close relative.
(Para 74, 75 and 88)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:
1. Km. Neelima Misra Vs Dr. Harinder Kaur
Paintal & ors., (1990) 2 SCC 740
2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs
B. Sharat Chandra, (1990) 2 SCC 669
3. S.A. Khan Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.; (1993) 3
SCC 151
4.
Central
Organization
for
Railway
Electrification Vs ECI SPIC SMO MCML; (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 3219
5. A.K. Kraipak & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.; (1969) 2
SCC 262
6. Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs St. of Har.; AIR 1987
SC 454
1440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs
Cricket Association of Bihar; (2015) 3 SCC 251
8. Dr. V.K. Sharma Vs St. of U.P.; 2006 (6) AWC
6263
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. These three petitions arise out of
a common cause and are heard together.
Consequently, they are being disposed of
by this judgment. The appointment of
Professor
Naima
Khatoon
as
Vice
Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University
(hereinafter referred to as 'the University')
is the subject matter of challenge in all the
three petitions.

Factual Matrix

2. Professor Tariq Mansoor was
appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the
University for a period of five years w.e.f.
17.5.2017. Although his term was to end in
May, 2022, however, the Visitor on
25.3.2022 extended his term for a further
period of one year or till a new ViceChancellor was appointed. During his
extended term as Vice-Chancellor, Professor
Tariq Mansoor, in exercise of his powers
vested in him under sub-section (3) of
Section 19 of the Aligarh Muslim University
Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act
of 1920'), appointed Professor Mohd. Gulrez
as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University.
Thereafter, on 2.4.2023, Professor Tariq
Mansoor resigned as Vice-Chancellor of the
University. A communication came to be
issued by the Registrar of the University on
4.4.2023 stating that by virtue of Statute 2(7)
of the First Statutes of the University,
Professor Mohd. Gulrez would perform the
duties of the Vice-Chancellor until a new
Vice-Chancellor assumes office. It is during
the continuance of Professor Gulrez as
officiating Vice-Chancellor that his wife
Professor Naima Khatoon got appointed as
the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

3. Process for appointment of the
new Vice-Chancellor commenced with
circulation of an agenda of the Registrar on
23.10.2023, whereby Members of the
Executive Council of the University were
asked to assemble for a special meeting
convened on 30th October, 2023 at 12.00
Noon for the purposes of drawing a panel
containing name of five candidates to be
recommended to the University Court, for
the purposes of appointment of ViceChancellor. It is on record that 33
recommendations
came
up
for
consideration for such purpose. These
persons either submitted their bio-data in
the office of Registrar or were otherwise
recommended by the members of the
Executive Council.

4. Since shortlisting of five names to
be recommended to the Court was based upon
the votes secured by them, in the meeting of
Executive Council and, therefore, Professor
Mirza Asmer Beg was appointed as the
Election Officer, while two other persons,
namely Professor Mohd. Altamush Siddiqui
and Professor Mohd. Shameem were named
the teller.

5. The Election Officer published
schedule of election, according to which,
filing of nomination papers was to be held
between 1.00 pm to 1.30 pm; scrutiny of
nominations 1.30 to 2.00 pm; list of
nominated candidates to be displayed by
Election Officer at 2.00 pm; withdrawal of
nominations at 2.10 pm; final list of valid
nominations to be announced by the Election
Officer at 2.20 pm; casting of votes at 2.45
pm; counting of votes (after closure of
voting) and declaration of results (after
counting concludes).
5 All. Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1441
6. At the meeting of the Executive
Council, out of 33 recommendations
received, the list of nominated candidates
was settled at 20. Then nominated
Professor Naima Khatoon, who happens to
be the wife of Professor Mohd. Gulrez,
who was acting as the Vice-Chancellor by
virtue of Statute 2(7) of the First Statutes of
the
University.
All
petitioners
were
included in the list of 20 nominated
candidates.

7. Twenty members existed in the
E.C. Meeting of 30th October, 2023.
Professor Naima Khatoon since was herself
an applicant did not vote. Accordingly, 19
candidates were left in the fray. Each of
these 19 members of Executive Council
could cast five votes. Thus a total number
of 95 votes could be cast in the election.

8. After the votes were cast in a
secret ballot, Professor Faizan Mustafa
received 9 votes; Professor Naima Khatoon
and Professor Qayyum Husain obtained 8
votes, each. Five persons, namely Professor
Abdul Alim; Professor Baharul Islam;
Professor Furqan Qamar; Professor Mujahid
Beg and Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani
received 7 votes, each. Other persons
received lesser votes.

9.
Professor
Faizan
Mustafa;
Professor Naima Khatoon and Professor
Qayyum Husain having secured 9 and 8
votes, respectively, were shortlisted. The
Executive Council had to prepare panel
consisting of five names; whereas only three
persons were shortlisted on the strength of
votes received by them. Remaining two
recommendations had to be chosen from five
names, all of whom received 7 votes, each.

10. In order to resolve the
situation a second poll was conducted.
Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani and
Professor Furqan Qamar were shortlisted
in the second poll. The panel, therefore,
consisted of Professor Faizan Mustafa;
Professor Naima Khatoon; Professor
Qayyum Husain; Professor Muzaffar
Uruj Rabbani and Professor Furqan
Qamar.

11. As per the procedure laid in the
rules, these five names were then placed
before the Court. In the meeting of the
Court, Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani
secured 61 votes; whereas Professor Faizan
Mustafa secured 50 votes; Professor Naima
Khatoon could get 50 votes. Two other
candidates apparently received 47 votes,
each. The Court accordingly forwarded
names of Professor Muzaffar Uruj Rabbani;
Professor Faizan Mustafa and Professor
Naima Khatoon to the Visitor for their
consideration for appointment as ViceChancellor.
12. The Visitor of the University,
who happens to be the President of India, in
exercise of her powers under Clause 2(1) of
the Statutes of the University appointed
Professor
Naima
Khatoon
as
ViceChancellor
of
the
University.
A
communication to this effect has been
issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Education on 22nd April, 2024,
which is under challenge in the present writ
petition.

Statutory
Scheme
Governing
Appointment of Vice-Chancellor

13. The appointment on the post of
Vice
Chancellor
of
Aligarh
Muslim
University is regulated by the provisions of
the Act of 1920. The parties are ad idem on
this issue. It would, therefore, be apposite
to refer to the provisions of the Act of 1920
as well as the Statues and Regulations
1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
framed thereunder in so far as it relates to
the appointment of Vice Chancellor of the
University.

14. Section 16 of the Act specifies
the Officers of the University in following
terms:-

(1) The Chancellor,
 (2) The Pro-Chancellor,
 (3) The Vice-Chancellor,
 (3A) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor, if
any;
 (3B) The Honorary Treasurer;

 (3C) The Registrar;
 (3D) The Finance Officer;
 (3E) The Deans of the Faculties; and
 (4) Such other officers as may be
declared by the Statutes to be officers of the
University.

15. Section 19 provides for the
Vice-Chancellor and is reproduced:-

 "19. The Vice-Chancellor.-(1)
The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by
the Visitor in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Statutes.

 (2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be
the principal executive and academic
officer of the University, and shall exercise
general supervision and control over the
affairs of the University and give effect to
the decisions of all the authorities of the
University.

 (3) The Vice-Chancellor may, if
he is of opinion that immediate action is
necessary on any matter, exercise any
power conferred on any authority of the
University by or under this Act and shall
report to such authority the action taken by
him on such matter:
 Provided that if the authority
concerned is of opinion that such action
ought not to have been taken, it may refer
the matter to the Visitor whose decision
thereon shall be final:

 Provided further that any person
in the service of the University who is
aggrieved by the action taken by the ViceChancellor under this sub-section shall
have the right to appeal against such action
to the Executive Council within three
months from the date on which decision on
such action is communicated to him and
thereupon the Executive Council may
confirm, modify or reverse the action taken
by the Vice-Chancellor.

 (4) The Vice-Chancellor shall
exercise such other powers and perform
such other functions as may be prescribed
by the Statutes or Ordinances."

16. Section 19, therefore, makes it
explicit that the Vice-Chancellor is to be
appointed by the Visitor in such manner as
may be prescribed by the Statutes.

17. Exercising the powers conferred
under Section 28(1) of the University, the
Statutes of the University have been
formulated.
Statute
2(1),
specifies
the
procedure in which the Vice-Chancellor is to
be appointed by the Visitor from a panel of at
least three persons, recommended by the
Court from a panel of five persons,
recommended by the Executive Council. The
proviso, however, leaves it to the discretion
of the Visitor not to approve any of the names
recommended by the Court and may call for
fresh recommendations. The term of the
Vice-Chancellor is five years. Statute 2(1) of
the Statutes, which provides such manner for
appointment
of
Vice-Chancellor
is
reproduced hereinafter:-
5 All. Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1443
 "2. The Vice -Chancellor - (1)
The Vice -Chancellor shall be appointed by
the Visitor from a ** panel of at least three
persons recommended by the Court from a
panel of five persons recommended by the
Executive Council:
 Provided that if the Visitor does
not approve of any of the persons
recommended by the Court, he may call for
fresh recommendations."

18. Section 22 provides for the
Authorities of the University. It includes
the Court and the Executive Council, apart
from others.

19. The composition of Court is
specified in Statute 14(1). The composition
of the Court and its authority in the matter
of governance are specified in Section 23
of the Act. Sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2) of Section 23 are relevant for the
present purposes and are reproduced:-

 "(1) The Court shall consist of
the Chancellor, the Pro-Chancellor, the
Vice-Chancellor
and
the
Pro-ViceChancellor (if any), for the, time being, and
such other persons as may be specified in
the Statutes.

 (2) The Court shall be the
supreme governing body of the University
and shall exercise all the powers of the
University, not otherwise provided for by
this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and
the Regulations and it shall have power to
review the acts of the Executive and the
Academic Councils (save where such
Councils have acted in accordance with
powers conferred on them under this Act,
the Statutes or the Ordinances)."

20.
The
composition
of
the
Executive Council is specified in Statute
16. The quorum for the Executive Council
by virtue of of Statute 16(3) is fifteen
members.
The
composition
of
the
Executive Council is statutorily prescribed
as that of, Vice-Chancellor; Pro-ViceChancellor;
Honorary
Treasurer;
Five
Deans of Faculties by rotation according to
seniority; One Director of Centres, by
rotation according to seniority; Two
Principals of Colleges, other than the
Principal of the Women's College, by
rotation according to seniority; Principal,
Women's
College;
One
Provost,
by
rotation according to seniority; Proctor; Six
members of the Court, none of whom shall
be an employee of the University, to be
elected from amongst themselves; Two
representatives of Professors and Readers
to be elected from amongst themselves;
Two representatives of Lecturers to be
elected from amongst themselves; Three
persons to be nominated by the Visitor;
One person to be nominated by the Chief
Rector.

21. The Executive Council is the
principal executive body of the University
and has been created under Section 24 of
the Act, which is reproduced hereinafter:-

 "24. The Executive Council.-
The Executive Council shall be the
principal executive body of the University.
Its constitution and the term of office of its
members and its powers and duties shall be
prescribed by the Statutes."

22. The powers and functions of
Executive Council are then specified in
Statute 17. By virtue of Clause (xvii), to
exercise such other powers and perform
such other duties as may be conferred or
imposed on it by the Actor the Statutes in
addition to the powers specified under
Statute 17(i) to 17 (xvi).
1444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
23. Regulations of the Executive
Council are also framed. Clause (8)
specifies that all questions considered at the
meetings of the Executive Council shall be
decided by a majority of the votes of the
members present including the Chairman.
If the votes be equally divided, the
Chairman shall have a casting vote.
Chapter II of the Regulations of the
Executive
Council
specifies
that
no
member, who is likely to be affected
personally
by
any
motion,
whether
favourably or adversely, shall be entitled to
vote on it. In case of a doubt, the Chairman
shall give his ruling with reasons which
shall be recorded. Clause (8) of the
Regulations of the University as well as
Clause (27) of Chapter II prescribing the
Rules of Debate, are reproduced:-

 "(8) All questions considered at
the meetings of the Executive Council shall
be decided by a majority of the votes of the
members present including the Chairman.
If the votes be equally divided, the
Chairman shall have a casting vote.

 (27) No member, who is likely to
be affected personally by any motion,
whether favourably or adversely, shall be
entitled to vote on it. In case of a doubt, the
Chairman shall give his ruling with
reasons which shall be recorded."

24. Within the broad conspectus of
above
referred
statutory
scheme
the
appointment of Vice-Chancellor is to be
made.

25. Petitioners in the writs have
assailed the selection and appointment of
Professor Naima Khatoon primarily on the
ground that her husband Professor Mohd.
Gulrez was acting as Vice-Chancellor and
had presided over the crucial meetings of
Executive Council and the Court, wherein
his wife was recommended for appointment
to the post. It is asserted that this is not just
a case of likelihood of bias on part of
Professor
Mohd.
Gulrez,
but
the
proceedings have been manipulated to
secure
selection
and
appointment
of
Professor Naima Khatoon. Submissions at
length are advanced on behalf of petitioners
to contend that the composition of
Executive Council and Court was changed
just 10 days before the selection by
Professor Mohd. Gulrez without any
justifiable cause. These changes were
intended to facilitate the selection of
Professor Naima Khatoon. It is also urged
that
the
proceedings
of
executive
committee were manipulated with material
irregularity committed in the counting of
votes; the election officer changed the rules
of the game midway by holding second
election to choose two candidates out of
five who secured equal votes, even though
the election schedule did not contemplate
such an exigency; Professor Mohd. Gulrez
rejected the objection of members of
Executive Council and Court questioning
his participation and presiding of the
proceedings due to conflict of interest. It is
also argued that the principles of natural
justice were breached when Professor
Mohd. Gulrez ruled in favour of his
presiding over the meeting of Executive
Council and the Court after rejecting the
objection of various members thereby
becoming a Judge in his own cause.

26. On behalf of petitioners, it is
also argued that the appointment of ViceChancellor was based on selection and the
voting of the members of the Court and the
Executive Council was merely to ascertain
the views, which did not change the nature
of proceedings from selection to election.
The petitioners, therefore, contend that
5 All. Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1445
principles of natural justice are clearly
breached and fairness, which is the cardinal
stone
of
any
valid
selection
is
compromised. It has, therefore, been
prayed that selection and appointment of
Professor Naima Khatoon be quashed and
fresh
proceedings
be
undertaken
for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor
of the University.

27. On behalf of respondents, the
submissions are countered stating that the
shortlisting of candidates in the Executive
Council and the Court was based upon the
votes secured by candidates, which was a
process of election in which the concept of
bias has no role to play. It is asserted that
the Executive Council and the Court has to
be presided by the Vice-Chancellor in the
statute and since Professor Mohd. Gulrez
was the Acting Vice-Chancellor, there was
no other option for him but to preside over
such meetings.

28. The doctrine of necessity is
pressed into service by the respondents for
such purpose. It is also argued that
Professor Mohd. Gulrez was in chair of the
proceedings and any objection raised had to
be ruled by him, and therefore, his decision
to reject the objection of members
questioning the propriety of his presiding
over meetings of the Executive Council and
the Court did not violate principles of
natural justice. Only the functions of chair
were performed by him, which otherwise
had the support of other members and the
decision was based upon due deliberation.
It is also submitted that allegation with
regard to manipulation in the cast of votes
and
conduct
of
second
ballet
are
misconceived
arguments.
Since
five
candidates had secured equal votes and the
decision otherwise under the regulations
were to be by the rule of majority the
holding of second election was inevitable.
It is also submitted that the holding of
second election has otherwise not been
questioned or doubted, and therefore, the
plea of manipulation in the holding of
election for recommendation is as a result
of afterthought. On behalf of respondents,
it is submitted that the petitioners in Writ-A
No. 16348 of 2024 raised no objection
when they too got recommended by the
Executive Council and the Court and it is
much after the appointment of Professor
Naima Khatoon that a belated challenge is
raised to her appointment. It is urged that
petitioners have not approached this Court
with clean hands and the writs have been
filed for oblique reasons.

29. Respondents also defend the
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor on the
ground that the selection ultimately was by
the Visitor of the University. It is
contended that Professor Naima Khatoon
was not only the person recommended for
appointment
to
the
post
of
ViceChancellor, in-fact, five persons, who were
recommended by the Executive Council
whereas three recommendations were made
by the Court to the Visitor. It is urged that
all three candidatures were ultimately
placed before the Visitor, who had
exercised her discretion under the statutes
to appoint Professor Naima Khatoon. It is
also urged that by the respondents that
Professor
Naima
Khatoon
possessed
requisite qualification for appointment to
the post of Vice-Chancellor and is the first
woman to have been so appointed in the
history of the university. It is further urged
that out of three recommendations made by
the university court to the visitor the visitor
had chosen to appoint Dr. Naima Khatoon
as the Vice-Chancellor. It has been urged
before us that visitor in the present case
happens to be the President of India and her
1446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discretion in choosing Professor Naima
Khatoon ought not be interfered by this
Court, likely, when no allegation of bias or
mala-fide is attributed to the visitor.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Km. Neelima Misra vs
Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal And Ors, (1990)
2 SCC 740, to contend that in matters of
appointment in the academic field the court
should be slow to interfere. Only when
statutory provisions are contravened or
ordinances are violated that interference of
the court would be permissible. Reliance is
placed upon paragraph 32 of the judgment
in Km. Neelima Misra (supra) to state that
appointments made by the visitor based
upon the recommendation of the Executive
Council and the University Court need not
be interfered with, particularly when the
selected
candidate
possesses
requisite
qualification and is otherwise the first
woman Vice-Chancellor of the University.

30. We have heard Sri Amit
Saxena, learned Senior counsel assisted by
Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.19427 of
2023, Sri Saquib Mukhtar, learned counsel
for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21023
of 2023, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior
counsel assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan,
learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.16348 of 2024, Ms. Aishwarya
Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar
Singh, Sri Abrar Ahmad, learned counsels
for Union of India; Sri Manish Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh,
learned
counsel
for
Aligarh
Muslim
University, Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth
Khare, learned counsel for Professor
Mohammad Gulrez, Sri Shyamal Narain,
learned counsel for the Vice-Chancellor,
whose appointment is under challenge, Sri
Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for
U.G.C. and have also perused the material
on record.

31. On the previous occasion, we
also directed the University to produce the
original records relating to proceedings of
shortlisting of names to be recommended to
the court by the Executive Council and
such original records have also been
produced before the Court. We have also
examined such records.

32. It is undisputed that Professor
Naima Khatoon, who has been appointed as
Vice-Chancellor of the University is the
wife of Professor Mohd. Gulrez. She was
otherwise
the
member
of
Executive
Council but did not participate in the
proceedings
for
shortlisting
of
the
candidates, as she was herself a candidate.
Husband of Professor Naima Khatoon
namely Professor Mohd. Gulrez was acting
as Vice-Chancellor when the process of
shortlisting of names took place. In the two
meetings of the Executive Council and the
Court where names were shortlisted for being
sent to the visitor, it was Professor Mohd.
Gulrez, who had presided. The petitioners,
therefore, argue that nature of proceedings
adopted for the purposes of preparing the
panel to be recommended to the visitor for
appointment of Vice-Chancellor contravened
the rule against bias. It is also urged that
proceedings were tweaked by Professor Mohd.
Gulrez to suit the convenience of his wife and
that it was not just a case of likelihood of bias
but in fact the proceedings are vitiated on
account of bias attributed to the Acting ViceChancellor, who maneuvered the appointment
of his wife as Vice-Chancellor.

33. On the basis of submissions
advanced by the rival parties, we find that
5 All. Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1447
following
questions
arise
for
our
determination in the facts of the present
case:-

 (i)
Whether
shortlisting
of
candidates for their recommendation to
visitor by the Executive Council and then
the Court involves process of selection or
election?

 (ii) Whether the shortlisting of
five names by the Executive Council based
upon the cast of votes is vitiated on account
of any manipulation?

 (iii) As a sequel, it has to be seen
as to whether the concept of likelihood of
bias would be attracted in the facts of the
present case due to active participation of
Professor Gulrez in the shortlisting of
candidates by the Executive Council and
the University Court, and its effect if it is
found so?

 (iv) Whether discretion exercised
by the visitor in selecting Professor Naima
Khatoon from the panel of three candidates
requires interference?

34. Parties are at issue on the
question of shortlisting of candidates for
their
recommendation
to
Visitor
by
Executive Council and the Court as being a
part of selection or election. Admittedly,
the shortlisting of candidates is on the basis
of votes secured by candidates on the
strength of secret ballot.

35. Sri Ashok Khare and Sri
Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsels as
well as Sri Shyamal Narain appearing for
the Professor Naima Khatoon submit that
the process of shortlisting is based on the
votes secured by the candidates available
for consideration to the post of ViceChancellor, it is case of election. Sri Shashi
Nandan and Sri Amit Saxena, learned
Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, however, submit that casting of
vote is merely with an intent to ascertain
the decision of the house since all decisions
are to be taken by majority. It is, therefore,
submitted that the recommendation is a part
of selection. Sri Shashi Nandan has
highlighted the Act and Statutes in order to
submit that selection and election both are
separately specified in the statute and that
the appointment of Vice-Chancellor is by
way of selection.

36. In order to examine the
submission, we have carefully gone
through the various provisions of the
applicable statute. Sri Shashi Nandan
has placed before us the statutory
scheme in order to urge that the ViceChancellor of the University is to be
appointed, and not elected. Various
officers of the University have been
specified in Section 16 of the Act, which
includes
the
Chancellor;
the
ProChancellor; the Vice-Chancellor, etc.
Section 17 provides for the Chancellor.
Sub-section (1) of Section 17 is relevant
and is reproduced:-

 "17(1) The Chancellor of the
University shall be elected by the Court in
such manner and for such term as may be
prescribed by the Statutes."

37. Similarly, Section 18 provides
for the Pro-Chancellor. Sub-section (1) of
Section 18 is also relevant and is
reproduced:-

 "18(1) The Pro-Chancellor shall
be elected by the Court in such manner and
for such term as may be prescribed by the
Statutes."
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
38.
Similarly,
Statute
1(1)
prescribes the manner in which the election
of Chancellor is to take place. Statute 1(1)
is reproduced:-

 "1(1) The Chancellor shall be
elected ** by the Court by a simple
majority."

39. Similar to the above provision
Statute 1A prescribes the manner in which
Pro-Chancellor
is
elected
and
is
reproduced:-

 "1A. The Pro-Chancellor - (1)
The Pro-Chancellor shall be ** elected by
the Court by a simple majority.

 (2) The Pro-Chancellor shall
hold office for a term of three years and
shall be eligible for re-election.

 **(3) Any casual vacancy in the
office of the Pro-Chancellor shall be filled
by the Chancellor on the recommendation
of the Executive Council and the person so
appointed shall hold office until the next
annual meeting of the Court.

 (4) The Pro-Chancellor shall, in
the absence of the Chancellor, perform the
functions of the Chancellor."

40. Unlike Section 17 & 18,
extracted above, which specifies that
Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor are to be
elected by the Court in such manner and for
such terms as may be prescribed by the
Statutes, the Act contemplates a different
scheme in respect of Vice-Chancellor. Subsection (1) of Section 19 clearly specifies
that Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by
Visitor in such manner as may be
prescribed. Statute 2 of the Statutes also
provides that Vice-Chancellor shall be
appointed by the Visitor from a panel of at
least three persons recommended by the
Court from a panel of five persons
recommended by the Executive Council.

41. Sri Shashi Nandan has also
emphasized from the statutory scheme that
the term election and appointment is
differently used in respect of the officers of
the University which clearly indicates the
statutory intent of maintaining distinction
between appointment based on selection
and election. Section 20 provides for ProVice-Chancellor to be appointed in such
manner as may be prescribed by the
Statutes. However, in case of Honorary
Treasurer, he has to be elected by the Court
in such manner as may be prescribed by the
Statutes. Quite contrary to Section 20-A,
Section 20-B provides that the Registrar
shall be appointed in such manner as may
be prescribed by the Statutes.

42. In cases where Officer is to be
appointed and not elected the Statute
prescribes the manner of appointment.
Apart from the Vice-Chancellor, the ProVice-Chancellor is to be appointed by the
Executive Council on the recommendation
of the Vice-Chancellor. Here also the
decision of the Executive Council has to be
by way of the majority in view of
Regulation 8 of the regulations regulating
the business of the Executive Council.
Similarly, the Registrar has to be appointed
on a recommendation of a Selection
Committee by the Executive Council. Here
also the ultimate decision of the Executive
Council will have to be on the strength of
majority. Where the decision is not
unanimous
the
casting
of
votes
to
determine the majority is inevitable.

43. The process of appointment of
Vice-Chancellor
commences
with
5 All. Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1449
submission of application alongwith BioData
for
its
consideration
and
recommendation by the Executive Council to
the Court. In the present case, 33 persons had
either applied or were recommended for
consideration. Out of these 33 persons, the
Executive Council found 20 nominations to
be valid and out of these 20 candidates, five
were recommended by the Executive Council
to the Court. The shortlisting of these five
candidates for recommendation to the Court
was on the basis of casting of vote by the
Members of the Executive Council in order
to ascertain the majority opinion of the house.
Similarly,
out
of
five
recommended
candidates, the Court also shortlisted three
persons for recommendation to the Visitor by
ascertaining the views of the house based on
cast of votes. The selection process then
consisted of the consideration of three
candidates recommended by the Court to the
Visitor who appointed Professor Naima
Khatoon.

44. On behalf of petitioners reliance
is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission Vs. B. Sharat Chandra, (1990) 2
SCC 669 to contend that selection cannot be
held to be the final act of appointment alone.
Every step in the process of selection is a part
of it. In para 7, the term selection has been
held to mean as under:-

 "7.......................................If
the word 'selection' is understood in a sense
meaning thereby only the final act of
selecting candidates with preparation of the
list for appointment, then the conclusion of
the Tribunal may not be unjustified. But
round phrases cannot give square answers.
Before accepting that meaning, we must see
the
consequences,
anomalies
and
uncertainties that it may lead to. The
Tribunal in fact does not dispute that the
process of selection begins with the issuance
of advertisement and
ends
with
the
preparation of select list for appointment.
Indeed, it consists of various steps like
inviting
applications,
scrutiny
of
applications,
rejection
of
defective
applications or elimination of ineligible
candidates,
conducting
examinations,
calling for interview or viva voce and
preparation of list of successful candidates
for appointment."

45.
The
typical
attributes
of
election are otherwise distinct. In a case of
election
the
constituency
of
voters
ultimately choose its representative for
espousing its interest. The person who is
seeking election may also exercise the right
of vote. Usually, the electorate votes in
favour of the person who would promote
their interest. Since promotion of the cause
of electorate is the object, therefore,
objective assessment of merit may not be
the dominant criteria in election. Unlike it
(election) when the cast of vote is in the
process of selection the voter is supposed to
exercise his vote in favour of the most
meritorious candidate.

46. In the case of the present kind
the members of executive council were
expected to choose five best candidates out
of those available for their recommendation
to the University Court. Such shortlisting is
by cast of votes. As observed earlier the
strict principles of election are not
applicable in the facts of the present case as
recommendation is expected to be based
upon the merits of the candidate.

47. The selection for the post of
Vice-Chancellor is essentially segregated
into two parts. The first part consists of
recommendation by the Executive Council
and the Court to the Visitor while the
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
second part relates to consideration of such
recommendation by the Visitor.