Page 1

              REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4412  OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27082 of 2012)

Hitendra Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Dr. P.D. Krishi Vidyapeeth by Reg. & Ors.     … Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4413  OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28373 of 2012)

Pramodini Ambadas Lad …Appellant

Versus

Chancellor Dr. P.D.K. Vidyapeeth & Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4414  OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28399 of 2012)

Parikshit Vinayak Shingrup & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

1

Page 2

Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4415   OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28437 of 2012)

Prashant Dinkarrao Peshattiwar & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Chancellor Dr. P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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,  

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  of  Junior  Research  Assistants.   As  many  as  3214  

2

Page 3

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  made  against  the  posts  of  Senior  

Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the  

cadre of Junior Research 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.

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  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  

3

Page 4

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 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 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 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.   

5. It  was  in  the  above  backdrop  that  the  Chancellor  

invoked his powers under Section 11 (1) of the Maharashtra  

4

Page 5

Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 and appointed Mr. Justice  

H.W.Dhabe, a former Judge of the High Court of Bombay to  

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  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 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  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.  

5

Page 6

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 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 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 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  

fairness of the selection process and calling upon them to  

appear in person before the Committee and to file affidavits  

6

Page 7

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  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  3½  years  to  

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 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   selection  of  undeserving  and  less  meritorious  candidates  by  manipulation,  favouritism and  other   malpractices etc.

7

Page 8

2) Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to two  separate cadres with different  pay scales,  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 interviews for the said posts.

3) The criteria for assessment of the candidates for the  posts of SRA/JRA were illegal.

4) The  Selection  Committee  has  awarded  marks  for   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.

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 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  were  not   prepared in the meeting of the Selection Committee   and  they  were  also  not  placed  before  any  of  its   meeting for its consideration and approval.

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 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.

10) The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA  were not prepared or considered and approved in the   

8

Page 9

meeting  of  the  Selection  Committee.   There  were  lacunae, deficiencies, illegalities and irregularities in   preparation of the selection list.

11) Though  in  the  advertisement  it  was  specifically   provided for wait lists to be prepared for the near   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  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.

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   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 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  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  over the Selection lists 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 2005 are not convincing.

9

Page 10

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 irregular.

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,  irregularities  and  improprieties and therefore the appointments made  pursuant thereto, need to be set aside.

9. On receipt of the report from Justice Dhabe Committee  

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 recommended that a lenient view be taken  

10

Page 11

by  the  Chancellor  and  the  appointments  already  made  

protected having regard 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  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 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 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  

11

Page 12

action against them including the 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 future recruitments.

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 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 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  

12

Page 13

were  heard  on  different  dates  mentioned  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 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 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  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  

13

Page 14

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 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  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  

Chancellor  the  Vice  Chancellor  issued  individual  orders  in  

each  case  terminating  the  services  of  the  appointees  

concerned.  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.

14

Page 15

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  

15

Page 16

time lag between the date of their  appointments and  

the date on which their services were terminated?

We shall deal with the question ad seriatim.   

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  

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 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 sciences  

16

Page 17

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  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 functions enumerated under the said  

provision,  in  particular  the  power  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:

“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.  We  

may gainfully extract the said provision in extenso as the  

power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry into the validity  

17

Page 18

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   inquiry on various matters:

(1) The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an   inspection to be made, by such person or per- sons or body of persons, as he may direct, of   any University,, its buildings, farms, laborato- ries,  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 and of the conduct of ex- aminations  or  other  functions  of  the  Univer- sity, and to cause to inquiry to be made in like   manner regarding any matter connected with   the administration or finances of the Univer- sity.

(2) The  Chancellor  shall,  in  every  case,  give  due   notice to the University of his intention to cause  an inspection  or inquiry  to be made,  and the   University shall be entitled to appoint a repre- sentative, who all have the right to be present   and to be heard at the inspection or inquiry.

(3)  After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to   be made, the Chancellor may address the Vice- Chancellor on the result of such inspection or in- quiry  and  the  Vice-Chancellor  shall;  communi- cate to the Executive Council  the views of the   Chancellor and call upon the Executive Council to   communicate to the Chancellor through him its   opinion thereon within such time as may have   been specified by the Chancellor. If the Execu- tive Council communicates, its opinion within the   specified time limit, after taking into considera- tion that opinion, or where the Executive Council   fails  to  communicate  its  opinion  in  time,  after   the specified  time limit  is  over,  the Chancellor   may proceed and advise the Executive  Council   

18

Page 19

upon the action to be taken by it, and fix a time   limit for taking such action

(4) The Executive Council shall, within the time limit   so  fixed,  report  to  the  Chancellor  through  the   Vice-Chancellor the action which has been taken   or is  proposed to be taken on the advice ten- dered by him.

(5) The Chancellor may, where action has not been   taken by the Executive Council to his satisfac- tion with in the time limit fixed, and after con- sidering any explanation furnished or represen- tation  made  by  the  Executive  Council,  issue   such direction, as the Chancellor may think fit,   and the Executive Council and other authority   concerned shall comply with such directions.

(6)  Notwithstanding anything contained in  the pre- ceding sub-section if at any time the Chancellor   is of the opinion that in any matter the affairs of   the University are not managed in furtherance   of the objects of the University or in accordance   with the provisions of this Act and the statutes   and Regulation or that special measures are de- sirable to maintain the standards of University   teaching, examinations, research, extension ed- ucation,  administration  or  finances,  the  Chan- cellor  may  indicate  to  the  Executive  Council   through the Vice-Chancellor  any  matter  in  re- gard to which he desires an explanation and call   upon the Executive Council to offer such expla- nation within such time as may be specified by   him. If the Executive Council fails to offer any   explanation within  the time specified or offers   an  explanation  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the   Chancellor  is  not  satisfactory  ,  the  Chancellor   may issue such directions as appear to him to   be necessary ,  and the Executive  Council  and   other  authority  concerned  shall  comply  with   such directions.

(7) The Executive Council shall furnish such informa- tion relating to the administration and finances   of  the  University  as  the  Chancellor  may from  time to time require.

(8) The Executive Council shall furnish to the State   Government such returns or other information   

19

Page 20

with respect to the property or activities of the   University  as the State government may from  time to time require“.

                  (emphasis supplied)

15. A careful reading of the above would leave no manner  

of  doubt  that  the  Chancellor  is  vested  with  the  power  to  

cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as  

he  may  direct  of  any  University,  its  building,  farms,  

laboratories,  libraries  etc.  or  of  hostels  administered  and  

recognised  by  the  University  or  of  the  teaching  or  other  

workshops  conducted  on  behalf  of  the  University  or  any  

conduct of examinations or other functions of the University.  

The  inspection  so  directed  is,  however,  distinct  from the  

inquiry which the Chancellor may direct regarding any matter  

connected  with  the  administration  or  finance  of  the  

University.  The expression ‘administration or finance’ of the  

University  are  in  our  opinion,  wide  enough  to  include  an  

inquiry into any matter that falls under Section 6(x) (supra).  

If  creation  of  teaching,  research  and  education  posts  

required  by  the  University  is  one  of  the  functions  of  the  

University  and  if  appointment  of  suitable  persons  against  

such posts is also one of such functions, there is no reason  

20

Page 21

why the power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry under  

Section 11(1) should not extend to any process leading to  

such  appointments.  The  term  ‘administration  of  the  

University’ appearing in sub-Section 1 of Section 11 would, in  

our opinion, include every such activity as is relatable to the  

functions of the University, under  Section 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  

Section 11(1) of the Act.  We have, therefore, no hesitation  

in holding that the inquiry directed by the Chancellor into the  

illegalities  and  irregularities  of  the  selection  process  

culminating  in  the  appointment  of  Senior  and  Junior  

Research  Assistants  was  legally  permissible.   The  power  

vested  in  the  Chancellor  under  Section  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  or  an  inquiry  whenever  

warranted in the facts and circumstances in a given case.  

We may also refer to Section 15 of the Act whereunder the  

Governor of Maharashtra is ex-officio Head of each of the  

21

Page 22

Universities  who  shall,  when  present,  preside  at  any  

convocation of the University.  Section 15 reads:

“(1)  The  Governor  of  Maharashtra,  shall  be  the   Chancellor of each of the Universities.

(2)  The Chancellor shall, by virtue of his office, be  the head of the University and shall, when present,   preside at any convocation of the University.

(3)  The Chancellor may call for his information any   papers relating to the administration of the affairs of   the University and such requisition shall be complied   with by the University.

(4)  Every  proposal  to confer  any honorary  degree   shall be subject to confirmation by the Chancellor.

(5)The Chancellor may,  by order in  writing,  annul   any proceeding of any officer or authority of the Uni- versity, which is not in conformity with this Act, the   Statutes or the Regulations, or which is prejudicial   to the interest of the University;

Provided  that,  before  making  any  such  order,  he   shall call upon the officer or authority to show cause   why such an order should not be made, and if any   cause is shown within the time specified by him in   this behalf, he shall consider the same.

(6) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers   and perform such other duties as are laid down by   this Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. A  plain  reading  of  the  above  shows that  apart  from  

being  the  ex  officio Head  of  the  University,  the  statute  

specifically confers upon the Chancellor the power to call for  

his information any paper relating to the administration of  

the  affairs  of  the  University  and  upon  such  request  the  

22

Page 23

University is bound to comply with the same.  Sub-section 5  

vests the chancellor with the power to annul any proceeding  

of 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 Sections 11 and 15, in our opinion, leaves  

no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  Chancellor  exercises  ample  

powers  in  regard  to  the  affairs  of  the  University  and  in  

particular in regard to the affairs of the administration of the  

University. The power to direct an inquiry into any matter  

concerning the administration of the University is only one of  

the facets of power vested in the Chancellor.  The exercise of  

any  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  same only when such exercise  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.  

The  power  to  direct  an  inquiry  is  meant  to  kickstart  

corrective  and  remedial  measures  and  steps  needed  to  

23

Page 24

improve  the  functioning  of  the  University  as  much  as  to  

correct any illegal or improper activity in the smooth running  

of the administration of the University.  As a father figure  

holding a high constitutional office, the Chancellor is to be  

the  guiding  spirit  for  the  Universities  to  follow a  path  of  

rectitude  in  every  matter  whether  it  concerns  the  

administration or the finances of the University or touches  

the teaching and other activities that are undertaken by it.  

The legislature, it is obvious, has considered the conferment  

of such powers to be essential to prevent indiscipline, root  

out  corruption,  prevent  chaos  or  deadlock  in  the  

administration  of  the  University  or  any  office  or  

establishment under it that may tend to shake its credibility  

among those who deal with the institution.    

17. The Chancellor had, in the case at hand, directed an  

inquiry into the illegalities and irregularities in the selection  

and  appointment  process  in  the  light  of  widespread  

resentment against the same as is evident from the fact that  

three  writ  petitions  had  been  filed  in  the  High  Court  

challenging the selection and the appointment process.  Two  

24

Page 25

of the writ petitions had been disposed of as noticed earlier  

no sooner Justice Dhabe Committee was constituted by the  

Chancellor for holding a detailed inquiry into the allegations.  

The petitioners were not only aware of the fact about the  

pending writ proceedings but also about the constitution of  

Justice  Dhabe  Committee.  As  a  matter  of  fact  with  the  

disposal of Writ Petitions No.4771 of 2006 and 905 of 2006  

the petitioner had known that Justice Dhabe Committee will  

eventually  determine  whether  or  not  their  selection  and  

appointment was proper. Justice Dhabe Committee had even  

issued notices to the petitioners who had in turn responded  

to the same. The constitution of Justice Dhabe Committee  

was, despite all this, never questioned by the petitioners. On  

the  contrary  the  petitioners  merrily  participated  in  the  

proceedings and took a chance to obtain a favourable verdict  

from  it.  Having  failed  to  do  so,  they  turned  around  to  

challenge not only the findings recorded by the Committee  

but even the authority of the Chancellor to set up such a  

Committee.  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  

25

Page 26

there  was  no  merit  in  that  contention  but  also  because  

having taken a  chance  to  obtain  a  favourable  verdict  the  

petitioners could not turn around to assail the constitution of  

the Committee itself.  Question 1 is accordingly answered in  

the negative.     

Reg. Question No. 2

18. The  petitioners  had  unsuccessfully  challenged  Justice  

Dhabe  Committee  Report  before  the  High  Court  on  the  

ground  that  principles  of  natural  justice  had  not  been  

complied with by the Committee.  The High Court has noted  

and in our opinion rightly so that Justice Dhabe Committee  

had issued notices to each one of the petitioners asking for  

their explanation which the petitioners had submitted.  The  

High Court noted that the inquiry proceedings before Justice  

Dhabe had continued for  nearly  three  years  during which  

period the petitioners had made no grievance either before  

the  Committee  or  before  any other  forum regarding non-

compliance with the principles of natural justice.  There is  

nothing on record to suggest that any point relevant to the  

controversy was not considered by Justice Dhabe Committee  

26

Page 27

or  that  there  was  any  impediment  in  their  offering  an  

effective defence before the Committee.  The petitioners had  

on the contrary candidly admitted in the writ petition itself  

that upon receipt of notices from the Committee they had  

appeared  and  filed  their  respective  affidavits  before  the  

Committee.  Some  of  the  petitioners  had  even  furnished  

some  additional  information  which  was  summoned  from  

them.  The  Committee  had,  it  is  evident,  associated  the  

petitioners with the proceedings by inviting them to appear  

and  participate  in  the  same,  heard  the  petitioners  and  

considered their version. There is neither an allegation nor  

any material  to suggest  that  there  was any reluctance or  

refusal  on  the  part  of  the  Committee  to  entertain  any  

material  which  the  petitioner  intended  to  place  in  their  

defence or to summon any record from any other quarter  

relevant to the questions being examined by the Committee.  

The argument that the petitioners did not know as to what  

the complaint against them was has been rejected by the  

High Court and quite rightly so.  Once the petitioners were  

informed about the setting up of the Committee and invited  

to  participate  in  the  same  and  once  they  had  appeared  

27

Page 28

before the Committee and filed their affidavits it is difficult to  

appreciate the argument that the petitioners did so without  

knowing as to why was the Committee set up and what was  

the inquiry all about.  Assuming that any of the petitioners  

did  not  fully  comprehend  the  nature  of  allegations  being  

inquired into by the Committee or the purpose of the inquiry  

nothing prevented the petitioners from taking suitable steps  

at the appropriate stage assuming that they were so naïve as  

to simply appear before the Committee without being aware  

of  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  invited.  They  could  

indeed  approach  the  Committee  to  secure  the  relevant  

information to fully acquaint themselves about the on-going  

process and the nature of the defences that  was open to  

them.  Having remained content with their participation in  

the inquiry proceedings for  nearly three years and having  

made no grievance at all against the procedure adopted by  

the  Committee  in  dealing  with  the  subject  till  the  writ  

petitions challenging the termination orders were filed, we  

see  no merit  in  the  specious contention that  principles of  

natural  justice  were  violated  by  the  Committee  especially  

when no  prejudice is demonstrably caused to the petitioners  

28

Page 29

on account of the procedure which the Committee followed in  

concluding the enquiry proceedings. Question No.2 is also in  

that view answered in the negative.     

Reg. Question No. 3

19. 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  us  to  challenge  the  said  findings  of  fact.   Even  

otherwise a 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 the  conclusions  and  the  Report  was  submitted  for  

action  but  once  such  conclusions  are  upon  a  careful  re-

appraisal found to be justified, a writ Court will be very slow  

in interfering with the same.     

20. In the present  case,  upon receipt of the report  from  

Justice  Dhabe  Committee  the  matter  was  directed  to  be  

placed before the Executive Council of the University.  That  

direction  was  meant  to  give  the  Executive  Council  an  

29

Page 30

opportunity  to  examine  the  findings  of  fact  and  the  

conclusions drawn from the same critically and to determine  

whether the same were justified. The Executive Council, it is  

common ground, had without any reservation approved the  

findings recorded by Dhabe  Committee,  no matter  with a  

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 by the Dhabe  

Committee as to the irregularities in the selection process  

culminating  in  illegal  appointments  of  the  selected  

candidates.  The ‘fact finding’ aspect thus stood concluded  

with the approval of the Executive Council of the University.  

The  Vice  Chancellor  no  doubt  made  an  attempt  at  

segregating what according to him was the valid part of the  

selection from that which was not, but the Chancellor did not  

approve of that exercise.  The Chancellor took the view that  

the  entire  selection  stood  vitiated  by  widespread  

irregularities,  leaving  hardly  any  room  for  a  distinction  

between the so called valid and invalid parts of the selection  

30

Page 31

process.  Be that as it may the fact remains that we have not  

been able to find any reason to interfere with the findings  

recorded by the Justice Dhabe Committee.  The sanctity of  

the  entire  selection  process  having  been  vitiated  by  

irregularities and acts of nepotism, question No. 3 shall have  

to be answered in the negative, which we accordingly do.

Reg. Question No. 4

21. It  is  also  not  in  dispute  that  in  compliance  with  the  

orders passed by the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor of the  

University had issued notices to the petitioners calling upon  

them to appear before him for a personal hearing in support  

of their selection and appointment as SRAs/JRAs.  It is also  

not  in  dispute  that  upon  receipt  of  the  said  notices  the  

petitioners had filed their responses in the required format  

and were also given an opportunity of being heard by the  

Vice Chancellor.  In the course of the hearing the petitioners  

obviously relied upon the  written  responses  and sought  a  

direction against ouster from service.  There is, therefore, no  

merit  in  the  submission  that  upon  submission  of  the  

recommendations  by  Justice  Dhabe  Committee  the  

31

Page 32

petitioners  did  not  have  any  opportunity  to  present  their  

version before the Vice Chancellor nor is it possible to dub  

the hearing provided by the Vice Chancellor as a farce.  The  

High  Court  has,  in  our  opinion,  rightly  rejected  a  similar  

contention urged before it and 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 procedure adopted by him  

in offering them a hearing.  As a matter of fact the Vice-  

Chancellor had in his anxiety to help the petitioners tried to  

sit  in  judgment  over  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  

inquiry  Committee  and  taken  a  stance  that  was  overtly  

sympathetic  towards  the  petitioners.   The  uncharitable  

expression used by the petitioners as to the nature of the  

process undertaken by the Vice Chancellor is not, therefore,  

justified.  The Vice Chancellor had in our view acted fairly  

and fully complied with the principle of natural justice.  There  

is no gainsaid that 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  

32

Page 33

being  made  and  the  consequences  flowing  from  the  

determination.  A notice to the petitioners who were likely to  

be  affected  and  a  hearing  afforded  to  them  apart  from  

written  responses  filed in  reply  to  the  notices  was in  our  

opinion a substantial compliance with the principles of natural  

justice.  No further hearing was required to be repeated by  

the Chancellor who had before whom the recommendations  

of  the  Executive  Committee  and  the  Vice  Chancellor  who  

took a final view of the matter having regard to the totality of  

the  circumstances.   The  High  Court  has,  in  this  regard,  

observed:

“Thus, the Chancellor was not required to give any   personal hearing to the petitioners while disagreeing   with them.  If we hold that prior to passing of the   final order the Chancellor was required to hear the   petitioners  once  again,  that  would  mean  that   although the facts are undisputed and although no   prejudice  is  demonstrated,  we  agree  with  the   submissions  of  the  petitioners.   This  would  mean   second  round  or  second  opportunity  being  made  available  to the  petitioners  to show cause against   the  findings  and  conclusions  in  the  Inquiry   Committee’s report.  That would mean reopening of   the matter in its entirety which was not permissible   and feasible in the peculiar facts of the case.  This   could be equated with an opportunity to show cause  against the proposed punishment as is available in   service  jurisprudence.   Those principles  cannot  be  imported into the exercise that has been undertaken   in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

33

Page 34

22. We see no error of law in the view taken by the High  

Court  to  warrant  our  interference.   Question  No.  4  is  

accordingly answered in the negative.

Reg. Question No. 5

23. 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 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 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 leading to  

the appointment of undeserving candidates by manipulation  

and favouritism. It was a case where the posts of SRAs/JRAs  

although  carrying  different  pay  scales  were  clubbed  for  

34

Page 35

holding  a  common  interview.  Even  the  criterion  for  

assessment of the merit of the candidates was found to be  

faulty.  Marks were awarded for qualifications although the  

thesis for such qualifications was submitted after  the date  

prescribed  for  such  advertisement.   Marking  system itself  

was found to be erroneous.  Higher weightage was given to  

the performance in the interview as compared to academic  

merit.   There  was  tinkering  in  the  mark  sheets  of  the  

candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made  

available in the meetings of the Selection Committee.    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 these among other  

aspects were considered by 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 were left out with a brooding sense of injustice  

and cynicism against  the  efficacy of  the  system that  was  

meant to act fairly and objectively.  Continuance in office of  

35

Page 36

those selected by means that are not fair, transparent and  

reasonable  will  amount  to  perpetuating  the  wrong.   The  

length of service put in by the candidates who were selected  

on the basis of such a faulty selection process may be one of  

the  considerations  that  enters  the  mind of  the  Court  but  

there are other weighty considerations that cannot be given  

a go bye or conveniently forgotten lest those who do not  

adopt such malpractices or those who expect the system to  

protect  their  interest  and  their  rights  are  eternally  

disappointed and left to believe that a wrong once done will  

never be corrected just because the legal process by which it  

is to be corrected is a long and winding process that often  

takes years to reach fruition.  

24. Having said that we must say that the main contention  

which  the  petitioners  have  urged  in  support  of  their  

continuance in service is that they have become overage for  

any government employment at this stage.  If ousted from  

service the petitioners will have no place to go nor even an  

opportunity to compete for the vacancies against which they  

were appointed. That is an aspect which can be and ought to  

36

Page 37

be considered especially when there is no allegation leave  

alone evidence about any bribery having taken place in the  

issue of appointment orders by the officials concerned.  Even  

so, continuance of the petitioners in service would not, in our  

opinion,  be  justified  having  regard  to  the  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  

petitioners  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 next selection  

the petitioners shall also be considered in relaxation of the  

upper age limit prescribed for them.  Such of the petitioners  

who  could  try  their  luck  in  the  next  selection  and  who  

succeed in the same will also have the benefit of continuity of  

service.   

25. That brings us to the method of selection that may be  

followed falling up the vacancies that will be caused by the  

ouster  of  the  petitioners.   An affidavit  has  in  that  regard  

been filed by the Shri Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar  

37

Page 38

of  the  respondent-University  stating  that  in  terms  of  

Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2013 the Maharashtra State  

legislature  has  amended  Maharashtra  Agricultural  

Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeths) Act,  1983.  Section 58 of  

the principal Act as substituted by Act XXXII aforementioned  

provides that no person shall be appointed by the University  

as  a  member  of  the  academic  staff,  except  on  the  

recommendation  of  a  Selection  Board  constituted  for  the  

purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes  

made  in  that  behalf.   The  posts  of  SRAs  and  JRAs  are  

classified as academic as per Statute 71 of the MAU statutes  

1990.  The process of amendment to the statute 75 and 76  

is  now  underway.   The  affidavit  further  states  that  the  

University will not be in a position to undertake the selection  

process  of  posts  advertised  on  23rd March  2012 and  that  

selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per the new  

selection procedure.  The affidavit is, however, silent as to  

the procedure that shall be followed by the Selection Board  

constituted  for  the  purpose.  Be  that  as  it  may  the  

establishment of a Selection Board and formulation of proper  

procedure to be followed by the Board will go a long way in  

38

Page 39

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.   We only hope that  the  process  of  amendment  of  

relevant statute is expedited by the University and concluded  

as far as possible within six months from today and process  

of filling up of posts of SRAs and JRAs currently held by the  

petitioners  and  those  that  were  advertised  in  terms  of  

advertisement  dated  23rd March  2012  undertaken  in  

accordance with such procedure.     

26. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed  

but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.  We  

however  direct  that  the  University-respondent  shall  take  

necessary steps for constituting the Selection Board in terms  

of Section 58 of the Act as amended by Maharashtra Act No.  

XXXII  of  2013  and  advertise  the  vacancies  currently  

available, together with the posts that are presently held by  

the  appellants  for  recruitment  in  accordance  with  the  

procedure  that may be prescribed in accordance with law.  

The  entire  process  shall  be  completed  by  the  University  

39

Page 40

within six months.  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 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 appellants is selected by the  

new  selection  process,  he  shall  be  granted  benefit  of  

continuity of service.  But such of the appellants who do not  

compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts  

that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on  

completion of the period of six months hereby granted. No  

costs.

    …………..…………………..…..…J.            (T.S. THAKUR)

         …………..…………………..…..…J.            (C NAGAPPAN)

New Delhi April 4, 2014

40