Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10722 OF 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3038 of 2008)

  Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon               ….  Appellant

Versus

The Chancellor, Lucknow University & Ors    …. Respondents

JUDGMENT

S. A. BOBDE, J.

1.  Leave granted.

2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Allahabad  

High Court,  by which the High Court  has set aside the  

order  of  the  Chancellor  dated  13th March  2007  passed  

under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act,  

1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).  By the said  

order,  the  Chancellor  had approved the appointment of  

the appellant by holding that the appellant possessed the  

prescribed  and  required  qualification  for  the  post  of  

Professor of Physics (Specialization in Experimental Solid  

1

Page 2

State).  The  Chancellor  had  passed  this  order  on  a  

reference made under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act.

3. The  appellant  was  selected  by  the  duly  constituted  

Selection  Committee  consisting  of  the  Vice  Chancellor,  

Lucknow University, three experts in the field of Physics  

appointed  by  the  Chancellor,  the  Head  of  Department,  

Physics,  Lucknow  University,  the  Registrar,  Lucknow  

University and two other members as representatives of  

the  SC/OBC.  The  Selection  Committee  unanimously  

resolved  to  recommend  the  appellant’s  name  for  the  

aforesaid  post  to  the  Executive  Council,  Lucknow  

University under Section 31(4) of the Act.  

4. The Executive Council considered the recommendation of  

the  Selection Committee but  did  not  agree with  it  and  

passed the following recommendation:

“Resolved  that  the  recommendation  under  reference be referred, under Section 31(8) (a) of  the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, to H.E., The  Chancellor,  Lucknow  University  for  his  decision  because the lone candidate recommended namely  Dr. Mrs. Poonam Tandon does not have research  publications in the field of   Experimental  Solid  State  Physics  and  as  such  she  is  not  “actively  engaged  in  research”  in  this  field  of  specialization; also she has not taught the subject  under  reference  at  any  stage  so  far.  Consequently, she has not fulfilled the minimum  qualification for the post of Professor as laid down  in Statute 11.02”.

2

Page 3

5. Upon this,  the  Chancellor  perused  the record  and  held  

that  the  appellant  holds  the  prescribed  and  requisite  

qualifications for appointment to the post of Professor in  

Physics.  The Chancellor observed that the candidate has  

been recommended by the Selection Committee only after  

due  consideration  of  competence  of  the  candidate  in  

Experimental  Solid  State  Physics.   The  Chancellor,  

however, observed that the Executive Committee ought to  

have been clear and specific in its dissent.

6. The  matter  was  carried  to  the  High  Court  by  two  

candidates  who  were  agreed  by  non-selection.   The  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  held  that  since  the  

Chancellor had observed that there was no disagreement,  

which is a requirement of the Section and therefore the  

reference under Section 31(8) (a) of the Act was not a  

competent  reference,  the  matter  should  have  been  

referred by to the Executive Committee for taking a fresh  

decision.  The High Court further held that the Chancellor  

ought not to have answered the question of eligibility and  

qualification of the respondent No.4.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have  

carefully perused the orders of the Authorities.  We find  

that  the  order  of  the  Chancellor  was  unexceptionable.  

3

Page 4

The  Executive  Council  had  by  a  majority  referred  the  

question  whether  the  appellant  does  has  the  requisite  

qualifications, to the Chancellor for decision (supra).   The  

Chancellor was therefore bound to answer that question  

and in fact has done so.  The reasoning of the High Court  

that because the Chancellor observed that the Executive  

Council had not expressed clear and specific dissent about  

the  qualification  and  appointment  of  the  appellant,  the  

Chancellor could not have entertained the reference and  

decided it, is wholly untenable and contrary to law.  The  

Chancellor  had  not  observed  that  there  was  no  

disagreement  expressed  by  the  Executive  Council  for  

appointing the appellant but had only observed that the  

disagreement had not been clearly specified.  This did not  

mean that the Chancellor  had held the reference to be  

incompetent.  Indeed  the  resolution  of  the  Executive  

Council  clearly  referred  the  question  of  the  appellant’s  

qualification to the Chancellor and  letter of  the Executive  

Council dated 19th October, 2006 clearly  -states that the  

Executive  Council  “did  not  agree”  with  the  

recommendation  of  the  Selection  Committee  and  

therefore had passed the resolution referring the matter.  

The reference was clearly competent under Section 31 (8)

(a) of the Act, which reads as follows:

4

Page 5

“In the case of appointment of a teacher of the  University,  if  the  Executive  Council  does  not  agree with the recommendation dame by the  Selection  Committee,  the  Executive  Council  shall refer the matter to the Chancellor along  with the reasons of such disagreement, and his  decision shall be final.

[Provided that if the Executive Council does not  take a decision on the recommendation of the  Selection  Committee  within  a  period  of  four  months from the date of the meeting of such  Committee,  then  also  the  matter  shall  stand  referred  to  the  Chancellor,  and  his  decision  shall be final”]

8.    The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of  

this in  Neelima Misra v.  Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others:  

(1990) 2 SCC 746.  Our view is in consonance with the same.  

9. There was no reason for the High Court  

to interfere with the order of the Chancellor, which must be upheld.  

As a  result,  the judgment of  the High Court  is  set  aside.   The  

University Authorities shall act in accordance with the decision of  

the Chancellor and shall give effect to the directions issued by the  

Chancellor as contained in the order dated 13th March, 2007.

10.The appeal is allowed.

11.In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order  

as to costs.

................………………..J.   

5

Page 6

                                                                             [DR. B.S.  CHAUHAN]

….....………………………J.    [S.A. BOBDE]

New Delhi, November 28, 2013  

6