# HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS v. DR. P. D. KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2014] 4 S.C.R. 717
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-04-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4412 of 2014
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hitendra-singh-s-o-bhupendra-singh-ors-v-dr-p-d-krishi-vidyapeeth-by-reg-ors-29942
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY ACT,
1983:
A
B
c
ss. 6, 11 and 15 - Power of Chancellor to appoint
Committee to inquire into illegalities and irregularities in
selection and appointment of Senior Research Assistants and
Junior Research Assistants - HELD: Inquiry directed by
Chancellor into illegalities and irregularities of selection
0
process in appointment of Senior and Junior Research
Assistants was legally permissible -- Exercise of such power
is not subject to any limitation or impediment because the
power is vested in a high constitutional functionary who is
expected to exercise the same only when such exercise
E
becomes necessary to correct aberrations and streamline
administration so as to maintain the purity of the procedures
and process undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt
with by it.
ss. 11 and 15 - Report of Justice Dhabe Committee that
F
entire selection process was vitiated by illegalities,
irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, appointments
made need to be set aside - Accepted by Chancellor and
appointments cancelled - Compliance of principles of natural
justice - Held: Justice Dhabe Committee had issued notices
G
to the appointees who had in tum responded to the same -
Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice
were violated by the Committee especially when no prejudice
is demonstrably caused to petitioners on account of
717
H
718
SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A procedure which the Committee followed in concluding the
enquiry proceedings - Further, in compliance with orders
passed by Chancellor, Vice Chancellor of University issued
notices to appointees calling upon them to appear before him
for a personal hearing in support of their selection and
B appointment as SRAs/JRAs -- The appointees filed their
responses in required format - They were a/so given an
opportunity of being heard by Vice Chancellor -- Thus, Vice
Chancellor had acted fairly, and fully complied with principle
of natural justice - No further hearing was required to be
c repeated by Chancellor, who had before him the
recommendations of Executive Committee and Vice
Chancellor and took a final view of the matter having regard
to the totality of circumstances - Continuance in office of those
selected by means that are not fair, transparent and
0 reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong - Therefore,
appointments were rightly set aside by Chancellor- Directions
give for constituting of Selection Board in terms of
/.:mendment Act 32 of 2013 and for selection afresh giving
age relaxation to appellants, and on their selection to give
them benefit of continuity of service - Service Jaw -
E Administrative Jaw - Principles of natural justice - Audi alteram
partem.
Complaints to the Governor and Chancellor of the
University and writ petitions before the High Court were
F filed alleging illegalities and irregularities in the selection
of 76 Senior Research Assistants and 55 Junior
Research Assistants. The Chancellor in terms of s. 11 of
the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities Act, 1983,
appointed Justice Dhabe Committee to examine the
G papers relating to the selection and appointments of the
candidates and to submit a report as to its fairness. The
Committee submitted its report concluding that the entire
selection process and selection of the candidates to the
posts of SRA and JRA was vitiated by the illegalities,
H irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, the
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. 0. 719
KRISHI VIOYAPEETH BY REG
appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set
A
aside. The Chancellor cancelled the appointments both
. of Senior Research Assistants and of Junior Research
Assistants. Ultimately, individual letters were issued to
them terminating their services. The writ petitions filed by
the appointees were dismissed by the High Court.
B
In the instant appeals, the following questions arose
for consideration of the Court:
1)
Was the Chancellor competent to ap

## Text

_Characters 0–39,136 of 67,286. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39136 for what follows._

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 717
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH & ORS.
v.
DR. P. D. KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4412 of 2014 etc.)
APRIL 04, 2014
[T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]
MAHARASHTRA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY ACT,
1983:
A
B
c
ss. 6, 11 and 15 - Power of Chancellor to appoint
Committee to inquire into illegalities and irregularities in
selection and appointment of Senior Research Assistants and
Junior Research Assistants - HELD: Inquiry directed by
Chancellor into illegalities and irregularities of selection
0
process in appointment of Senior and Junior Research
Assistants was legally permissible -- Exercise of such power
is not subject to any limitation or impediment because the
power is vested in a high constitutional functionary who is
expected to exercise the same only when such exercise
E
becomes necessary to correct aberrations and streamline
administration so as to maintain the purity of the procedures
and process undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt
with by it.
ss. 11 and 15 - Report of Justice Dhabe Committee that
F
entire selection process was vitiated by illegalities,
irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, appointments
made need to be set aside - Accepted by Chancellor and
appointments cancelled - Compliance of principles of natural
justice - Held: Justice Dhabe Committee had issued notices
G
to the appointees who had in tum responded to the same -
Therefore, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice
were violated by the Committee especially when no prejudice
is demonstrably caused to petitioners on account of
717
H
718
SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A procedure which the Committee followed in concluding the
enquiry proceedings - Further, in compliance with orders
passed by Chancellor, Vice Chancellor of University issued
notices to appointees calling upon them to appear before him
for a personal hearing in support of their selection and
B appointment as SRAs/JRAs -- The appointees filed their
responses in required format - They were a/so given an
opportunity of being heard by Vice Chancellor -- Thus, Vice
Chancellor had acted fairly, and fully complied with principle
of natural justice - No further hearing was required to be
c repeated by Chancellor, who had before him the
recommendations of Executive Committee and Vice
Chancellor and took a final view of the matter having regard
to the totality of circumstances - Continuance in office of those
selected by means that are not fair, transparent and
0 reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong - Therefore,
appointments were rightly set aside by Chancellor- Directions
give for constituting of Selection Board in terms of
/.:mendment Act 32 of 2013 and for selection afresh giving
age relaxation to appellants, and on their selection to give
them benefit of continuity of service - Service Jaw -
E Administrative Jaw - Principles of natural justice - Audi alteram
partem.
Complaints to the Governor and Chancellor of the
University and writ petitions before the High Court were
F filed alleging illegalities and irregularities in the selection
of 76 Senior Research Assistants and 55 Junior
Research Assistants. The Chancellor in terms of s. 11 of
the Maharashtra Agriculture Universities Act, 1983,
appointed Justice Dhabe Committee to examine the
G papers relating to the selection and appointments of the
candidates and to submit a report as to its fairness. The
Committee submitted its report concluding that the entire
selection process and selection of the candidates to the
posts of SRA and JRA was vitiated by the illegalities,
H irregularities and improprieties and, therefore, the
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. 0. 719
KRISHI VIOYAPEETH BY REG
appointments made pursuant thereto, need to be set
A
aside. The Chancellor cancelled the appointments both
. of Senior Research Assistants and of Junior Research
Assistants. Ultimately, individual letters were issued to
them terminating their services. The writ petitions filed by
the appointees were dismissed by the High Court.
B
In the instant appeals, the following questions arose
for consideration of the Court:
1)
Was the Chancellor competent to appoint a
single Member Committee headed by Justice
C
H.W. Dhabe to examine the· illegalities,
irregularities, fairness and impropriety of the
selection
process
and
consequent
appointments to the cadre of SRAs and JRAs?
2)
Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted to
Justice Dhabe Committee conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural
justice?
D
3)
Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe
E
Committee in any manner illegal or perverse to
warrant interference with the same by a writ
Court?
4)
Was the procedure adopted by the University
F
and the Vice Chancellor fair and reasonable
and in consonance with the principles of
natural justice?
5)
Was the Chancellor of the respondentUniversity and the High Court justified in
G
declining the prayer of the petitioners for
continuance in service on account of the time
lag between the date of their appointments and
the date on which their services were
terminated?
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Question No. 1 :
B
1.1 Creation of teaching, research and education
posts required by the University being one of the
functions of the University and appointment of suitable
persons against such posts being also one of such
functions: the power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry
c u/s. 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Agriculture University Act,
1983, can extend to any process leading to such
appointments. The term 'administration of the University'
appearing in sub-s. (1) of s. 11 would, include every such
activity as is relatable to the functions of the University,
0 u/s. 6. Selection of persons suitable for appointment and
appointments of such persons would logically fall within
the expression_"administration of the University" within
the meaning of s. 11(1) of the Act. Section 15 (5) vests the
Chancellor with the power to annul any proceeding of
E any officer or authority if the same is not in conformity
with the provisions of the Act, the statutes or the
Regulations or which is prejudicial to the interest of the
University. A conjoint reading of ss. 11 and 15, leaves no
manner of doubt that the Chancellor exercises ample
powers in regard to the affairs of the University and in
F particular in regard to the affairs of the administration of
the University. The power vested in the Chancellor u/s.
11 to direct an inspection or an inquiry into matters
referred to in the said provision is very broad and vests
the Chancellor with the authority to direct an inspection
G
~r an inquiry whenever warranted in the facts and
circumstances in a given case. The exercise of such
power is not subject to any limitation or impediment
understandably because the power is vested in a high
constitutional functionary who is expected to exercise the
H same only when such exercise becomes necessary to
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. OR. P. D. 721
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG.
correct aberrations and streamline administration so as
A
to maintain the purity of the procedures and process
undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt with by
it. Therefore, the inquiry directed by the Chancellor into
the illegalities and irregularities of the selection process
culminating in the appointment of Senior and Junior
B
Research Assistants was legally permissible. [Para 15 -
16] [739-H; 740-A-D; 741-E-H; 742-A]
1.2 Justice Dhabe Committee was constituted by the
Chancellor for holding a detailed inquiry into the
allegations. The petitioners were not only aware of the
C
fact about the pending writ proceedings but also about
the constitution of Justice Dhabe Committee, which had
issued notices to the appointees who had in turn
responded to the same. The constitution of Justice
Dhabe Committee was never questioned by the
D
petitioners. While the findings recorded by the Inquiry
Committee could be assailed, the challenge to the setting
up of the Committee was clearly untenable not only
because there was no merit in that contention but also
because having taken a chance to obtain a favourable
E
verdict, the petitioners could not turn around to assail the
constitution of the Committee itself. [Para 17] [742-E-F, GH; 743-B-C]
Question No. 2:
2. The petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged
Justice Dhabe Committee Report before the High Court
F
on the ground that principles of natural justice had not
been complied with by the Committee. The High Court
has rightly noted that Justice Dhabe Committee had
G
issued notices to each one of the petitioners asking for
their explanation which the petitioners had submitted.
The petitioners had candidly admitted in the writ petition
itself that upon receipt of notices from the Committee
they had appeared and filed their affidavits before the
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A Committee. The Committee had, associated the
petitioners with the proceedings by inviting them to
appear and participate in the same, heard them and
considered their version. Therefore, it cannot be said that
principles of natural justice were violated by the
B Committee especially when no prejudice is demonstrably
caused to the petitioners on account of the procedure
which the Committee followed in concluding the enquiry
proceedings. [Para 18] [743-C-E, F-H; 744-F-G]
c Question No. 3:
3.1 Findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee
were based on facts discovered in the course of the
inquiry. No serious attempt was made before the High
Court nor even before this Court to challenge the said
D findings of fact. Even otherwise, a fact finding inquiry
instituted by the Chancellor was bound to involve
appraisal of evidence, documentary and oral. The
conclusions drawn on the basis of such appraisal were
open to critical evaluation by the authorities before whom
E the conclusions and the Report was submitted for action
but once such conclusions, are upon a careful reappraisal found to be justified, a writ court will be very
slow in interfering with the same. [Para 19] [744-H; 745A-C]
F
3.2 In the instant case, upon receipt of the report from
Justice Dhabe Committee, the matter was directed to be
placed before the Executive Council of the University,
which. without any reservation approved the findings
recorded by Dhabe Committee, no matter with a
G recommendation to the Chancellor to take a lenient view
in the matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioners
had already served the University for nearly six years. The
recommendation of the Executive Council did not,
however, find anything amiss with the conclusions drawn
H by the Dhabe Committee as to the irregularities in the
HITENDRA SINGH S/0 BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 723
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG.
selection process culminating in illegal appointments of A
the selected candidates. The Chancellor also took the
view that the entire selection stood vitiated by widespread
irregularities. There is no reason to interfere with the
findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee that the
sanctity of the entire selection process was vitiated by
B
irregularities and acts of nepotism. [Para 20) [745-C, D-F,
G-H; 746-A)
Question No. 4:
4.1 In compliance with the orders passed by the
C
Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor of the University issued
notices to the appointees calling upon them to appear
before him for a personal hearing in support of their
selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs. The
appointees filed their responses in the required format
D
and were also given an opportunity of being heard by the
Vice Chancellor. The High Court has correctly concluded
that the petitioners had failed to establish that the Vice
Chancellor had either violated the principles of natural
justice or that any prejudice was caused by the
E
procedure adopted by him in offering them a hearing.
Thus, the Vice Chancellor acted fairly and he fully
complied with the principle of natural justice. [Para 21)
[7 46-B-D, E-F I G-H]
F
4.2 The requirements of audi alteram partem are not
capable of a strait jacket application. Their application
depends so much upon the nature of the tribunal that is
deciding the matter, the nature of the inquiry that is being
made and the consequences flowing from the
determination. A notice to the petitioners who were likely G
to be affected and a hearing afforded to them apart from
written responses filed in reply to the notices was a
substantial compliance with the principles of natural
justice. No further hearing was required to be repeated
by the Chancellor, who had before him the
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 4 S.C.R.
A recommendations of the Executive Committee and the
Vice Chancellor and took a final view of the matter having
regard to the totality of the circumstances. There is no
error of law in the view taken by the High Court to warrant
interference. [Para 21 & 22) [746-H; 747-A-C]
8 Question No. 5:
5.1 The Chancellor declined to show any leniency to
the petitioners, no matter they had served the University
for over six years, primarily because the entire selection
c process was in his opinion vitiated by widespread
irregularities in the selection process. The findings
recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee upon a detailed
and thorough examination of the matter fully supported
that view of the Chancellor. The reasons that prevailed
0 with· the Chancellor cannot be said to be illusory or
irrelevant so as to call for interference from a writ Court.
The Chancellor was dealing with a case where the
Selection Committee had called a large number of
candidates for interview without following the proper
procedure as prescribed by the State Government
E leading to the appointment of undeserving candidates by
manipulation and favouritism. The Chairman and the
Member Secretary of the Selection Committee had on
their own increased the number of posts of SRAs and
JRAs to be filled upon. All aspects were considered by
F Justice Dhabe Committee in its report which concluded
that the entire selection process was vitiated. That
beneficiaries of such faulty selection process should hold
on to the benefit only because of lapse of time would be
travesty of justice especially when deserving candidates
G were left out. [Para 23) [747-H; 748-A-C, F-G]
5.2 Continuance in office of those selected by means
that are not fair, transparent and reasonable will amount
to perpetuating the wrong. Continuance of the petitioners
H in service would not, be justified having regard to the
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 725
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG.
background in which the selection and appointments
were made and eventually set aside by the University. All
that the long years of service rendered with the University
may secure for the appellants is a direction to the effect
that in any future selection against the vacancies caused
by their ouster and other vacancies that may be available
for the nextselection, the petitioners shall also be
considered in relaxation of the upper age limit prescribed.
Such of the petitioners who appear in the next selection
and succeed, will also have the benefit of continuity of
service. [Para 23 - 24] [748-H; 749-E-G]
Constituting of Selection Board and recruitment afresh:
6.1 In view of the amendment of 1983 Act in term of
Maharashtra Act No. XXXll of 2013, establishment of a
Selection Board and formulation of proper procedure to
be followed by the Board will go a long way in making
the process of selection and recruitment objective, fair
and reasonable apart from bringing transparency to the
norms and the process by which such recruitments were
made. [Para 25] [750-A-B, E]
A
B
c
D
E
6.2 This Court directs that the respondent-University
shall take necessary steps for constituting the Selection
Board in terms of s. 58 of the Act as amended by
Maharashtra Act f.lo. XXXll of 2013 and advertise the
vacancies currently available, together with the posts that
F
are held by the appellants for recruitment in accordance
with the procedure that may be prescribed in accordance
with law. The appellants shall also be allowed to apply
and participate in the selection process against the
vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper age
limit prescribed for such recruitment. For a period of six
G
months or till the process of selection and appointment
based on the selection process is completed by the
respondent, whichever is earlier, the appellants shall be
allowed to continue in service on the same terms as are
currently applicable to them. In case any one of the
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A appellants is selected by the new selection process, he
shall be granted benefit of continuity of service. (Para 26]
[750-G-H; 751-A-C]
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4412 of 2014.
From the Judgment and order dated 16.08.2012 of the
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in WP No. 238 of 2012.
WITH
C Civil Appeal Nos. 4413, 4414 and 4415 of 2014.
P.P. Rao, Shantanuu Khedkar, Satyajit A. Desai,
somanath Padhan, Anagha S. Desai, Anuradha Mutatkar for
the Appellants.
·sanjay Kharde, Abhay Sambhre, Preshit Surshe, Amol
D ·Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Akshat Kulsreshtha, Swarnendu
Chatterjee, Surajit Bhaduri for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
_ 2. These appeals arise out of a common Judgment and
Order dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench whereby writ petitions
No.238, 247, 251 and 389 of 2012 filed by the appellants,
F · herein, have been dismissed and the orders passed by the
respondents terminating their services affirmed .
. 3. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth invited
applications for appointment against 24 vacancies in the cadre
of-senior Research Assistants and 37 vacancies in the cadre
G of Junior Research Assistants. As many as 3214 applications
were received from eligible candidates against 61 posts so
advertised. Appointments based on the selection conducted by
the Selection Committee concerned were all the same made
for as many as 131 posts out of which 76 appointments were
H made against the posts of Senior Research Assistant while the
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 727
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
remaining 55 were made in the cadre of Junior Research
A
Assistants. It is common ground that the selection process was
based on a total weightage of 100 marks for each candidate
out of which 40 marks were reserved for educational
qualification of the candidate and his/her experience while the
remaining 60 marks were set apart for viva-voce examination.
B
4. Several complaints appear to have been made against
the selection process and the resultant appointments made by
the University. Some of these complaints were in the form of
writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
C
while some others were addressed to His Excellency, the
Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be the Chancellor of
the University. Out of the writ petitions filed against the selection
and appointment process, Writ Petition No.4771 of 2006 inter
alia prayed for a direction to the Chancellor to institute an
inquiry under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Agriculture
D
Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1983 in regard to the
illegalities and irregularities committed in the selection and
consequent appointments against the vacancies referred to
above. By an Order dated 21st April, 2007 passed by the High
Court in the said petition, the Chancellor was directed to take
E
a decision in the matter on or before the 14th August, 2007.
Two other writ petitions were similarly filed before the High
Court of Nagpur challenging the selection and appointment
process. In writ petition No.342 of 2006 filed by Shri H.S.
Bache, the High Court passed an interim order to the effect that
F
the selection of the candidates shall remain stayed subject to
the further orders of the Court. Writ Petition No.905 of 2006 filed
by Archana Bipte and another also assailed the validity of the
selection and appointment process undertaken by the University
on several grounds.
·
G
5. It was in the above backdrop that the Chancellor
invoked his powers under Section 11 (1) of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 and appointed Mr. Justice
H.W.Dhabe, a former Judge of the High Court of Bombay to
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A examine the papers relating to the selection and appointment
of the candidates concerned against the posts referred to
above and to submit a report to the Chancellor as to the
fairness of the selection of the candidates appointed by the
University. A reading of the order passed by the Chancellor
B would show that apart from several allegations made by Dr.
B.G. Bhathakal, Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University and four
others, the Chancellor had before him, a report dated 8th
November, 2006 submitted by the Director General MCAER
Pune from which the Chancellor noticed several irregularities
c allegedly committed in the process of selection such as
violation of Statute 52, holding of common interviews for both
Senior and Junior Research Assistants, appointing meritorious
candidates from the reserved category seats instead of
appointing them in the open merit category, selection of as
D many as 22 relatives of officers/employees of the University,
absence of any short-listing of candidates for purposes of
interview even when the applications were far in excess of the
advertised vacancies. There were also allegations of the
selection process not being transparent apart from allegations
to the effect that the norms for academic evaluation and viva
E voce examination had been flouted.
6. With the constitution of the Justice Dhabe's Committee
writ petition No.4771 of 2006 titled Dr.Balwant and Anr. versus
His Excellency the Chancellor of Dr.Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi
F Vidyapeet & Ors. and writ Petition No.905 of 2006 titled Ms.
Archana and Anr. V. State and Ors. were both disposed of with
the-observation that Justice Dhabe Committee was constituted
to examine the complaints made by the writ petitioners and
connected issues was expected to submit its report to the
G Chancellor making it unnecessary for the Court to undertake
any such exercise in the said petitions.
7. Proceedings before Justice Dhabe Committee started
with the issue of notices to those appointed informing them
about the establishment of the Committee to inquire into the
H
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 729
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
fairness of the selection process and calling upon them to
A
appear in person before the Committee and to file affidavits
and documents, if any, to justify their selection and appointment.
It is not in dispute that the appellants received the said notices
and acknowledged the same by filing their respective affidavits.
The appellants were in the meantime informed by the University
B
that they had completed their period of probation satisfactorily
but the declaration to that effect was to remain subject to the
outcome of writ petitions No.342 of 2006 and 4771 of 2006.
8. Justice Dhabe Committee took nearly 3Y:z years to
C
complete the inquiry and to submit its report to the Chancellor
in which the entire process of selection and appointment came
under severe criticism questioning the fairness of the selection
process and the resultant appointments. The High Court has
summed up the substance of the findings and conclusions
0
arrived at by Justice Dhabe in the following words:
1)
As large numbers of candidates were called for
interview, without following proper ratio as
prescribed by the State government, it has led to
se'qcfion of undeserving and less meritorious
E
cc... =-··Jates by manipulation, favouritism and other
malpractices etc.
2)
Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to
two separate cadres with different pay scales,
F
different qualifications
and duties
and
responsibilities, the Selection Committee held
common interviews for the said posts and vitiated
the selection of the candidates as their suitability
could not have been properly judged in such
G
interviews for the said posts.
·
3)
The criteria for assessment of the candidates for
the posts of SRAIJRA were illegal.
4)
The Selection Committee has awarded marks for H
730
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A
Ph.D. Thesis submitted, research papers/popular
articles published and significant contribution
made after the last date of application i.e.
15.09.2004 by resorting to illegal marking system.
B
5)
The Selection Committee gave higher weightage
to the performance in interview as compared to
academic performance. .
6)
The procedure followed by the Selection
Committee for awarding marks to the candidates
c
for academic performance and performance in
interview was illegal and invalid.
7)
There was tinkering in mark seats of the
candidates. In some of the cases the mark sheets ·
D
were not prepared in the meeting of the S~ction
Committee and they were also not place before
any of its meeting for its consideration and
approval.
E
8)
The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the
Selection Committee on their own without any
authority or power in them increased the number
of posts of SRA and JRA to be filled in.
9)
Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and
F
76 posts of JRA was not made according to the
prescribed percentage for each of the backward
classes and open category as per the relevant
GRs.
G
10)
The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA
were not prepared or considered and approved in
the meeting of the Selection Committee. There
were lacunae, deficiencies, illegalities and
irregularities in preparation of the selection list.
H
11)
Though in the advertisement it was specifically
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 731
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
provided for wait lists to be prepared for the near
A
future vacancies, no wait lists were prepared by the
Selection Committee.
12)
The Selection Committee did not discharge any
of its duties and responsibilities in· the selection
8
process.
13)
The entire selection process and selection of
candidates pursuant thereto for the posts of SRA
and JRA is vitiated by bias of Dr. V.D. Patil,
Chairman of the Selection Committee.
C
14)
As per the findings of Justice Dhabe, favouritism
has occurred in the process of selection to the
posts of SRA and JRA
15)
The qualification of Bachelor's degree in
D
Agriculture Engineering was introduced as an
additional qualification for the post of JRA as per
the addendum dated 06.09.2004 to the
advertisement dated 14. 08.2004 in which the posts
of JRA were advertised with the qualification of E
Bachelor's degree in Agriculture.
16)
Preparation of the minutes of various meetings of
the Selection Committee were not recorded
faithfully and confirmed by its other members. The
F
proceedings/minutes of the meetings of the
Selection Committee were probably prepared after
the appointment orders were issued on
16.09.2005 and 17.09.2005.
17)
There were more than 2 months delay in handing G
over the Selection fists to the then Vice
Chancellor. The reasons given by the then Vice
Chancellor for the delay in not receiving the
selection lists towards the end of June or July
H
732
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
2005 are not convincing.
18)
The Reservation policy of the Government was not
followed by the University. Reservations of the
posts for backward classes (social/ vertical
reservation) were not made according to their
prescribed percentage as per the relevant GRs. of
the State Government.
19)
The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan
Maharashtra Open University were not considered
in the University for appointment and promotion
in the post of JRA.
20)
There were illegalities, flaws and consequential
reshuffling of the Selection Lists and other
infirmities in preparation of the existing selection
lists of these posts of SRA and JRA. Thus, the
appointments made in the posts of SRA and JRA
are highly i"egular.
21)
The routine procedures for making appointment
in the university was not followed in the
appointments made to the posts of SRA and JRA.
In the report it is concluded that the entire selection
process and selection of the candidates to the
posts of SRA and JRA is vitiated by the illegalities,
i"egularities and improprieties tmd therefore the
appointments made pursuant thereto, need· to be
set aside.
9. On receipt of the report from Justice Dhabe Committee
G the Chancellor directed the Vice Chancellor of the University
to place the matter before the Executive Council for its opinion.
The matter was accordingly placed before the Executive
Council of the University on 14th February 2011. The Council
while accepting the findings recorded by the Dhabe Committee
H recommended that a lenient view be taken by the Chancellor
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 733
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
and the appointments already made protected having regard
A
to the fact that those appointed had already served the
University for over six years during the interregnum. The
petitioners also appear to have made a representation to the
Chancellor in which they once again asserted that their
appointments had been properly made on the basis of their
B
merit and that the termination of their services after more than
six years will be grossly unfair. The Chancellor, however, felt
that Justice Dhabe Committee had reported illegalities and
irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Selection
Committee which findings having been accepted by the c
Executive Council left no room for any leniency in the case,
considering the gravity and seriousness of the matter.· The
Chancellor found that the entire process of selection of
candidates and their appointments stood vitiated because of
such irregularities. Directions were accordingly issued to the
0
Vice Chancellor to initiate action to cancel the appointments
of the candidates concerned after following the procedure
prescribed by law and to fix the responsibility of those who had
committed lapses in the matter of selection of the candidates
and take disciplinary action against them including the
E
Chairman of the Selection Committee and the then Registrar
and Member Secretary of the said Committee. The Chancellor
further directed the Vice Chancellor to consider the suggestions
made by Justice Dhabe Committee in order to avoid
· recurrence of such illegalities and irregularities in fut-ure
recruitments.
F
10. In obedience to the directions issued by the Chancellor,
disciplinary action appears to have been initiated against those
comprising the Selection Committee in which the officials are
accused of having made illegal selection of 131 candidates
G
including the petitioners thereby not only causing financial loss
to the University but also bringing disrepute to it. We are in the
present appeals not concerned with the fate of the said
proceedings which appear to be lingering on even at present.
As regards the petitioners, they were served notices calling
H
734
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
A upon them to appear before the Vice Chancellor for a personal
hearing against their selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs
in the University. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in reply
to the said notices filed their respective responses before the
Vice Chancellor and were heard on different dates mentioned
B in the communications received by them. It is also not in dispute
that the petitioners submitted their representations before the
Vice Chancellor in writing in which they stated that their
appointments were regular and legally sound apart from relying
upon the fact that they had served the University for nearly six
c years thereby entitling them to protection against ouster on
equitable grounds. The Vice Chancellor then reported the result
of the hearing provided by him to the petitioners by his letter
dated 1st November 2011. Consideration of the report received
from the Vice Chancellor, the opinion offered by the Executive
0 Council of the University and the entire material including the
report submitted by Justice Dhabe Committee led the
Chancellor to pass an order on 16th December 2011 in which
the Chancellor held that the entire process of selection and
appointment having lost its sanctity on account of irregularities
in the same could not be approved or rectified. The Chancellor
E felt that a lenient view on humanitarian grounds alone would be
against the principles of governance and fair selection process
in the matter of recruitment. He accordingly turned down the
recommendation of the Vice Chancellor that out of 83 SRAs
and JRAs, selection of 65 candidates could be saved as valid
F while remaining 18 could be ousted. He directed that Justice
Dhabe Committee Report did not leave any room for the Vice
Chancellor to strike a discordant note or sit in judgment over
the conclusions drawn by the Committee. The Chancellor
accordingly cancelled the appointments of 83 candidates of
G SRAs and JRAs who had been selected and taken into the
service of the University on the basis of a process which the
Chancellor found was vitiated and void ab initio.
11. In compliance with the directions issued by the
H Chancellor the Vice Chancellor issued individual orders in each
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 735
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
case terminating the services of the appointees concerned.
A
Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners filed Writ Petition
Nos. 238/12, 389/12, 247/12 and 251/12 before the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench which petitions have
now been dismissed by the said Court in terms of the common
order impugned in these appeals."
•
B
12. We have heard learned· counsel for the parties at
length. The following questions arise for our consideration:
1)
Was the Chancellor competent to appoint a Single
Member Committee headed by Justice H.W.
Dhabe to examine the illegalities, irregularities,
fairness and impropriety of the selection process
and consequent appointments to the cadre of SRAs
and JRAs?
2)
Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted to Justice
Dhabe Committee conducted in accordance with
the principles of natural justice?
3)
Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe
Committee in any manner illegal or perverse to
warrant interference with the same by a Writ Court?
4)
Was the procedure adopted by the University and
the Vice Chancellor fair and reasonable and in
consonance with the principles of natural justice?
5)
Was the Chancellor of the respondent-University
and the High Court justified in declining the prayer
of the petitioners for continuance in service on
account of the time lag between \he date of their
appointments and the date on which their services
were terminated?
We shall deal with the question ad seriatim.
c
D
E
F
G
H
736
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 4 S.C.R.
A
Reg. Question No. 1
13. Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi
Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 was enacted to consolidate and
amend the law relating to the agricultural universities in the
8
State of Maharashtra. The legislation provides for better
governance, more efficient administration and financial control
of the Universities and for better organisation of teaching,
research and extension education therein apart from providing
better facilities in agricultural and allied matters in particular for
the development of agricultural sciences which is one of the
C prime objects underlying the Act. Chapter II of the Act comprises
Sections 3 to 11. Section 4 of the Act states that each University
shall be deemed to be established and incorporated for the
purposes enumerated therein. The purposes mentioned in the
said provision includes education in agriculture in allied
D sciences and in humanities besides furthering the advancement
of learning and research in agriculture, undertaking and guiding
extension education programmes; integrating and coordinating
the teaching of subjects in the different faculties, coordinating
agricultural education, research and extension education
E
activities, teaching and examining students and conferring
degrees and diplomas. Section 6 of the Act deals with the
powers and functions of the Universities. It inter alia provides
that each University shall have the powers and fLmctions
enumerated under the said provision, in particular the,power
F
to institute teaching, research and extension education posts
required by the University and to appoint persons to such posts.
Sub-section (x) to Section 6 is in this regard relevant which
reads:
G
H
"to institute teaching, research and extension education
posts required by the University and to appoint persons
to such posts.,,
14. Section 11 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to
cause an inspection and inquiry on matters stipulated therein.
HITENDRA SINGH S/O BHUPENDRA SINGH v. DR. P. D. 737
KRISHI VIDYAPEETH BY REG. [TS. THAKUR, J.]
We may gainfully extract the said provision in extenso as the
A
power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry into the validity of
the selection and appointments has been questioned before
us in these appeals. Section 11 reads as under:
"SECTION 11: Chancellor to cause inspection and 8
inquiry on various matters:
(1)
The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an
inspection to be made, by such person or persons
(2)
or body of persons, as he may direct, of any
University,, its buildings, farms, laboratories,
C
libraries, museums, workshops and equipments of
.any college, institution or hostel maintained,
administered or recognised by the University and
of the teaching and other work conducted by or on
behalf of the University or under its auspices of D
and of the conduct of examinations or other
functions of the University, and to cause to inquiry
to be made in like manner regarding any matter
connected with the administration or finances of
the University.
E
The Chancellor shall, in every case, give due
notice to the University of his intention to cause
an inspection or inquirv to be made. and the
University shall be entitled to appoint a
representative, who all have the right to be present
and to be heard at the inspection or inquiry.
F
(3)
After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to
be made. the Chancellor may address the ViceChancellor on the result of such inspection or G
inquiry and
the
Vice-Chancellor shall:
communicate to the Executive Council the views
of the Chancellor and call upon the Executive
Council to communicate to the Chancel/or
through him its opinion thereon within such time
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 4 S.C.R.
as mav have been specified bv the Chancellor. If
the Executive Council communicates, its opinion
within the specified time limit, after taking into
consideration that opinion, or where the Executive
Council fails to communicate its opinion in time,
after the specified time Hmit is over, the Chancellor
may proceed and advise the.