DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                         [2022] 1 S.C.R. 813                              813


                  DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA                                   A
                                  v.
                      STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1913 of 2022)
                                                                          B
                          MARCH 24, 2022
  [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
       Service Law: Appointment – Appellant was engaged by
Respondent-University as ‘Guest lecturer’ to teach ‘Karam Kand’
to the students in the Department of Sanskrit – University issued an      C
advertisement inviting application to one post of lecturer in ‘Karam
Kand’ – Appellant applied for the post – Selection Committee
recommended the candidature of appellant for appointment to said
post – But the Executive Council disagreed with the Selection
Committee on the ground that the Vice Chancellor failed to request        D
the Chancellor to nominate subject experts in the Selection
Committee – Accordingly, Chancellor annuled the recommendation
for appointment of appellant – Appellant filed writ petition which
was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Chancellor on
the ground that admittedly there was no University in the country
awarding a post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and, therefore,            E
there were actually no experts in the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ –
Pursuant to the direction, the Chancellor considered the matter and
again rejected the recommendation of Selection Committee –
Appellant filed fresh writ petition – By impugned order, High Court
dismissed writ petition holding that after the order of remand, the       F
Chancellor had consulted a few experts and found that the subject
of ‘Karm Kand’ is altogether different from the subject ‘Sanskrit’
and that therefore, with the qualifications that the appellant
possessed, he could not be appointed – On appeal, held: The
consultations by the Chancellor with certain persons and the
information gathered by him were beyond the scope of order of             G
remand passed by High Court – The information collected by the
Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection
of the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the
appellant – In the absence of any specific prescription, the University
                                                                          H
                                 813
814            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     ought to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant
      subjects, before the process of selection began – Neither the
      University nor the Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that
      the appellant was not qualified in the “relevant subject” – Their
      initial objection was that the Selection Committee did not include
      the subject experts nominated by the Chancellor – After it was
B
      pointed out that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as
      no University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the
      High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the Chancellor
      – The Chancellor went on a detour to find out what are the
      differences between the subject of Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm
C     Kand’ – This was clearly erroneous – The parameters to be applied
      to a case where an incumbent to a post does not fulfil the
      qualifications prescribed for a post, are different from the
      parameters to be applied to a case where no specific qualifications
      are prescribed for a particular post – The question as to what
      constitutes “relevant subject” should have been left to the experts,
D
      before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes
      did not prescribe any specific qualifications – This did not happen
      in this case – In fact the question whether subject experts were
      available at all in ‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy
      – The entire controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the
E     tug of war in the year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the
      then Vice Chancellor, making the appellant a victim in the line of
      fire – Unfortunately, the High Court omitted to take note of all this
      – In the case on hand no candidate was available with a post
      graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which
      comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found
F
      the appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject –
      The appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit
      – In view of the fact (i) that the appellant has been teaching the
      very same subject for the past nearly 16 years; and (ii) that the
      original Selection Committee which found him eligible for
G     appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department of
      Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part, a
      direction issued to respondent-University to regularise the services
      of the appellant.


H
       DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                     815


      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                     A
       HELD: 1. The University conceded that the statutes do
not contain any prescription regarding the post of Lecturer in
‘Karm Kand’. It also conceded that the advertisement did not
indicate any specific qualification except that the aspirant should
hold a post graduate degree in the relevant subject. In the              B
absence of any specific prescription, the University ought to have
referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects, before
the process of selection began. Neither the University nor the
Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant
was not qualified in the “relevant subject”. Their initial objection
was that the Selection Committee did not include the subject             C
experts nominated by the Chancellor. After it was pointed out
that there were no subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’, as no
University was offering a specific course in ‘Karm Kand’, the
High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to the
Chancellor, to ascertain whether subject experts were actually           D
available and whether the failure of the Vice Chancellor to seek
nomination of such experts from the Chancellor vitiated the whole
process. Finding that the answer to the said question was too
difficult to be provided, the Chancellor went on a detour to find
out what are the differences between the subject of Sanskrit
and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’. This was clearly erroneous               E
and the High Court unfortunately omitted to notice this mistake.
[Paras 10, 11][822-C-F]
       2. The parameters to be applied to a case where an
incumbent to a post does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed
for a post, are different from the parameters to be applied to a         F
case where no specific qualifications are prescribed for a particular
post. The question as to what constitutes “relevant subject” should
have been left to the experts, before the advertisement was
issued, especially when the statutes did not prescribe any specific
qualifications. This did not happen in this case. In fact the question   G
whether subject experts were available at all in ‘Karm Kand’,
itself became a matter of controversy. The entire controversy
appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of war in the year
2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice Chancellor,

                                                                         H
816            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     making the appellant a victim in the line of fire. Unfortunately,
      the High Court omitted to take note of all this. The expression
      “equivalent qualifications” has a different connotation than the
      expression “relevant subject”. [Paras 13, 14][823-A-D]
            Punjab University v. Narinder Kumar and Others
B           (1999) 9 SCC 8 – held inapplicable.
            Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga
            University (2014) 3 SCC 767 : [2013] 17 SCR 1025
            – referred to.
             3. In the case on hand, no candidate was available with a
C     post graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee
      which comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit
      found the appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant
      subject. The appointment itself was to the post in the Department
      of Sanskrit. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition before
D     the High Court, the Academic Council of the University held a
      meeting on 22.08.2013. Agenda No.10 for the said meeting related
      to the qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in
      ‘Karm Kand’. The recommendation made by the Head of the
      Department of Sanskrit was accepted by the Academic Council.
      If only the High Court had looked into the minutes of the meetings
E     of the Academic Council it could have easily appreciated that the
      appellant was entitled to succeed. [Paras 16, 17, 18][824-A-C, E]
            4. In view of the fact (i) that the appellant has been teaching
      the very same subject for the past nearly 16 years; and (ii) that
      the original Selection Committee which found him eligible for
F     appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department of
      Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part,
      a direction is issued to the 5th respondent-University to regularise
      the services of the appellant. [Para 20][824-G-H; 825-A]
                             Case Law Reference
G
      (1999) 9 SCC 8                 held inapplicable       Para 14
      [2013] 17 SCR 1025             referred to             Para 15



H
       DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                         817


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1913                    A
of 2022.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.63137 of 2012.
      Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Avnish Pandey, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Ms.
                                                                             B
Jessy Kurian Advs. for the Appellant.
      Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Ms. Neela Gokhale, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Sandeep Devashish
Das, Lakshya Dheer, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             C
      V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
       1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition seeking to quash
an order of the Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth
University (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’), rejecting his
request to be appointed as Lecturer (Karm Kand), the appellant is before     D
this Court.
       2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
counsel appearing for the Chancellor of the University, the learned
counsel for University itself and the learned standing counsel for the
State.                                                                       E

       3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the above appeal
are as follows:-
      (i)    Vide order dated 22.10.1996, the State of U.P sanctioned
             one post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’ in the Department of        F
             Sanskrit in the University, which is arrayed as the 5th
             respondent herein. The Chancellor of the University, the
             Executive Council and the Vice Chancellor of the University
             are arrayed separately as respondents 2 to 4 herein for
             reasons not difficult to fathom.
                                                                             G
      (ii)   It appears that one Shri Jai Prakash Pandey was initially
             appointed to the said post and his services were also
             regularised. But the regularisation of his services was set
             aside by the High Court by an order dated 19.08.2006 in
             Writ Petition No.35149 of 1999.
                                                                             H
818         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     (iii)   Thereafter, the appellant herein was engaged by the
              University as a Guest Lecturer to teach ‘Karm Kand’ to
              the students in the Department of Sanskrit. The
              remuneration payable to him was fixed at Rs.250/- per
              lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.5,000/- per month.
B     (iv)    A proposal to fill up the post on regular basis was submitted
              by the Head of the Department of Sanskrit on 16.10.2006.
              It was approved by the Vice-Chancellor on 18.10.2006.
              Pursuant thereto, the University issued an advertisement
              bearing Advertisement No.2 of 2006, inviting applications
              for appointment to one post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’.
C             The advertisement also contained invitation for applications
              for various other posts in various departments. We are not
              concerned in this case with the posts in other departments
              for which applications were invited in the same
              advertisement. Suffice it to say that applications were invited
D             for appointment to 8 posts of lecturers in various subjects,
              one of which was for appointment to the post of Lecturer
              in ‘Karm Kand’.
      (v)     Unfortunately, a controversy erupted, when the then
              Chancellor of the University issued an oral order restraining
E             the Vice-Chancellor from convening the meetings of
              Selection Committees pursuant to the aforesaid
              advertisement, on the ground that the Vice-Chancellor was
              due to retire on 31.12.2007. But the High Court, by an order
              dated 04.10.2007 passed in a writ petition, made it clear
              that statutory functions performed by the Vice Chancellor
F             cannot be put on hold by oral orders of the Chancellor.
              Thereafter, a written order was issued by the Chancellor
              on 14.12.2007. However, the said order was challenged in
              another writ petition and the same was stayed by the
              Allahabad High Court, paving the way for the Selection
G             Committees to proceed further pursuant to the
              Advertisement No.2 of 2006.
      (vi)    As a consequence, the Selection Committees in respect of
              various posts held meetings and made recommendations.
              Some of these recommendations were accepted by the
H             Executive Council by its Resolution dated 24.12.2007.
DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                           819
         [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

(vii)   Since the Vice-Chancellor retired in the meantime before        A
        the recommendations were implemented, a batch of writ
        petitions came to be filed. A spate of interim orders came
        to be passed pursuant to which the Executive Council
        decided to refer the recommendations of the Selection
        Committees to the Chancellor under the proviso to Section
                                                                        B
        31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
(viii) In the case of the appellant, the Selection Committee had
       recommended his candidature for appointment to the post
       of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. But the Executive Council
       disagreed with the Selection Committee on the ground that
       the Vice-Chancellor failed to request the Chancellor to          C
       nominate subject experts in the Selection Committee. It is
       relevant to note here that the Selection Committee shortlisted
       only two persons, one of whom was the appellant and other
       Dr. Jai Prakash Pandey. The said Dr. Jai Prakash Pandey
       had secured only 49.2% marks as against the minimum              D
       prescription. Therefore, he was not issued with any
       interview call letter.
(ix)    Agreeing with the decision of the Executive Council, the
        Chancellor passed an order dated 23/28.12.2010 annulling
        the recommendation made by the Selection Committee for          E
        the appointment of the appellant.
(x)     The appellant challenged the said order of the Chancellor
        by way of a writ petition in Writ Petition No.6389 of 2011.
        By an Order dated 02.12.2011, the said writ petition was
        allowed and the matter remanded back to the Chancellor.         F
        The reason why the matter was remanded back to the
        Chancellor was that admittedly there was no University in
        the country awarding a post graduate degree in ‘Karm
        Kand’ and that, therefore, there were actually no experts
        in the subject of ‘Karm Kand’, as sought to be projected by
        the Chancellor. Since the question whether subject experts      G
        were at all available in the field of ‘Karm Kand’ went to
        the root of the matter, the High Court thought fit to remand
        the matter back to the Chancellor.
(xi)    Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Chancellor
        considered the matter and passed a fresh order dated            H
820             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A                   24.08.2012, rejecting the recommendation of the Selection
                    Committee. This order was challenged by the appellant by
                    way of a fresh writ petition in Writ Petition No.63137 of
                    2012. By the Order dated 14.05.2015 impugned in this
                    appeal, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
                    dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground
B
                    that after the order of remand, the Chancellor had consulted
                    a few experts and found that the subject of ‘Karm Kand’ is
                    altogether different from the subject Sanskrit and that
                    therefore, with the qualifications that the appellant possessed,
                    he could not have been selected for appointment. It is
C                   against this order of the High Court that the appellant is
                    before us.
             4. Before we proceed to consider the core issue arising for
      consideration, we are obliged to take note of the fact that admittedly the
      appellant was engaged as a Guest Lecturer on remuneration of Rs.250/
D     - per lecture subject to a maximum of Rs.5000/- per month from the
      year 2006. Ever since then the appellant has been teaching students
      undergoing a one year diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ for the past nearly
      16 years.
            5. The next thing we have to take note of before we take up for
E     consideration the issue arising in the above appeal, is that the appellant,
      and perhaps the entire selection process undertaken in 2006 by the
      University, became victims of the crossfire between the Chancellor and
      the Vice-Chancellor. Admittedly, the post was originally filled up by a
      person who was actually the purohit to the then Governor of State of
      Uttar Pradesh. But his appointment was set aside by Allahabad High
F     Court by an order dated 19.08.2006. It is only thereafter that
      Advertisement No.2 of 2006 came to be issued, inviting applications for
      appointment to the post.
             6. But it is of interest to note that the advertisement did not specify
      particularly that a candidate applying for the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm
G     Kand’ should hold a Master’s Degree in ‘Karm Kand’. In fact the order
      of the Chancellor dated 24.08.2012 which became the subject matter of
      the writ petition, specifically concedes as follows: “there is no mention
      of the subject Karm Kand in the Statutes of the Mahatma Gandhi
      Kashi Vidyapeeth nor any Ordinance under Section 51/52 nor any
H     Regulations under Section 53 of the U.P. State Universities Act,
       DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                             821
                [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

1973. The order of the Chancellor only relied upon Statute 11.01(1)              A
of the University First Statutes, 1977, which stipulated that the
minimum qualifications required for appointment to the post of
Lecturer in the University or a Master’s Degree or equivalent degree
in relevant subject with at least 55% marks and consistently good
academic record and NET or Ph.D. degree”.
                                                                                 B
       7. In his order dated 24.08.2012, the Chancellor held that the
appellant did not hold a Master’s degree in ‘Karm Kand’. But before he
came to such a conclusion, the Chancellor as well as the High Court
ought to have verified (i) whether the Statutes prescribed any specific
qualifications necessary for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm
Kand’; and (ii) if not, what should be considered as “relevant subject           C
and by whom”.
       8. It must be pointed out at this stage that in the first instance, the
Executive Council took a stand that the selection of the appellant was
vitiated primarily on account of non-inclusion of subject experts in the
field of ‘Karm Kand’. The appellant was not held by the Executive                D
Council to be a person not possessing the prescribed qualifications for
appointment. This is why the order of remand passed by the High Court
on 02.12.2011 specifically directed the Chancellor to consider whether
or not there were subject experts in ‘Karm Kand’ to be included in the
Selection Committee. Instead of confining himself to the said question,          E
the Chancellor seems to have taken the opinion of one Professor Gaya
Ram Pandey, Head of the Department of Sanskrit to come to the
conclusion that ‘Karm Kand’ and Sanskrit are two separate subjects
and that while ‘Karm Kand’ is a practical subject, Sanskrit is not. The
said Professor Gaya Ram Pandey also seems to have provided information
to the effect (i) that a few universities such as Banaras Hindu University,      F
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Lucknow University, and Lal Bahadur
Shashtri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth have included ‘Karm Kand’ as
a subject in their courses; and (ii) that, however, according to the
information from the Registrar of Lal Bahadur Shashtri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeeth, there is no post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. In his order            G
dated 24.08.2012 the Chancellor also recorded that certain universities
teach the subject of Karm Kand/Paurohitya and provide degrees like
Acharya (M.A) and Vidyavaridhi (Ph.D.).
      9. Obviously the consultations made by the Chancellor with certain
persons and the information gathered by him before passing the order             H
822            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     impugned before the High Court, were beyond the scope of order of
      remand passed by the High Court. The information collected by the
      Chancellor not only enlarged his original objections to the selection of
      the appellant but was also gathered behind the back of the appellant.
             10. In the course of hearing of the above appeal, we raised a
B     pointed query to Shri Sandeep D. Das, learned counsel appearing for
      the University as to whether the Statutes of University prescribed any
      specific qualifications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm
      Kand’ or at least whether Advertisement No.2 of 2006 indicated the
      qualifications. He had no alternative but to concede that the statutes do
      not contain any prescription regarding the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm
C     Kand’. He also conceded that the advertisement did not indicate any
      specific qualification except that the aspirant should hold a post graduate
      degree in the relevant subject.
             11. In the absence of any specific prescription, the University
      ought to have referred the question of what constitutes relevant subjects,
D     before the process of selection began. Neither the University nor the
      Chancellor took a stand in the first instance that the appellant was not
      qualified in the “relevant subject”. Their initial objection was that the
      Selection Committee did not include the subject experts nominated by
      the Chancellor. After it was pointed out that there were no subject experts
E     in ‘Karm Kand’, as no University was offering a specific course in
      ‘Karm Kand’, the High Court thought fit to remand the matter back to
      the Chancellor, to ascertain whether subject experts were actually
      available and whether the failure of the Vice Chancellor to seek nomination
      of such experts from the Chancellor vitiated the whole process. Finding
      that the answer to the said question was too difficult to be provided, the
F     Chancellor went on a detour to find out what are the differences between
      the subject of Sanskrit and the subject of ‘Karm Kand’. This was clearly
      erroneous and the High Court unfortunately omitted to notice this mistake.
             12. Admittedly, the appellant has been teaching ‘Karm Kand’ for
      the past nearly 16 years in the same University. Though the learned
G     counsel for the University stated that his continuance was on account of
      an interim order of status quo passed by this Court, we notice that the
      interim order of status quo was passed only on 14.09.2015. Unless the
      appellant was continuing as on that date, the order of status quo would
      have meant nothing for him.
H
          DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                        823
                   [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

       13. The parameters to be applied to a case where an incumbent           A
to a post does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for a post, are
different from the parameters to be applied to a case where no specific
qualifications are prescribed for a particular post. The question as to
what constitutes “relevant subject” should have been left to the experts,
before the advertisement was issued, especially when the statutes did
                                                                               B
not prescribe any specific qualifications. This did not happen in this case.
In fact the question whether subject experts were available at all in
‘Karm Kand’, itself became a matter of controversy. The entire
controversy appears to have arisen as a result of the tug of war in the
year 2006 between the then Chancellor and the then Vice Chancellor,
making the appellant a victim in the line of fire. Unfortunately, the High     C
Court omitted to take note of all this.
       14. The expression “equivalent qualifications” has a different
connotation than the expression “relevant subject”. In Punjab
University vs. Narinder Kumar and Others1, this Court was concerned
with the interpretation of the expression “relevant subject”. But in that      D
case the advertisement itself prescribed “the essential qualifications”
under one head and “desirable specialisation” under another head.
Therefore, this Court found that though the words “relevant subject”
did not throw any light on the question as to what are the relevant subjects
for the post of a Lecturer in any specified subject, the column dealing
with “desirable qualifications” threw light upon what was relevant.            E
Therefore, cases in which a clue is available in the advertisement itself
may stand on a different footing than cases where there is no such clue.
      15. In Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput vs. Gulbarga
University2, this Court was concerned with a case where applications
were invited for appointment to the post of Lecturer in MCA, from              F
candidates holding a post graduate degree in the “relevant subject”. As
a matter of fact, this Court found that candidates with Masters’ degree
in Computer Applications were available, but a candidate with Masters’
degree in Mathematics was selected. This Court found fault with the
decision of the Board of Appointment in selecting the candidate with a         G
Master’s degree in Mathematics with a flawed reasoning that
Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA.

1
    (1999) 9 SCC 8
2
    (2014) 3 SCC 767                                                           H
824            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           16. In the case on hand no candidate was available with a post
      graduate degree in ‘Karm Kand’ and the Selection Committee which
      comprised of a representative of the Department of Sanskrit found the
      appellant to possess a Master’s degree in the relevant subject. The
      appointment itself was to the post in the Department of Sanskrit.
B           17. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition before the
      High Court, the Academic Council of the University held a meeting on
      22.08.2013. Agenda No.10 for the said meeting related to the qualifications
      for appointment to the post of Lecturer in ‘Karm Kand’. The
      recommendation made by the Head of the Department of Sanskrit was
      accepted by the Academic Council. Agenda Item No.10 of the said
C     meeting of the Academic Council reads as follows:
            “Agenda No.10: Recommendations of Department of Sanskrit.
            Prof Uma Rani Tripathi Head of the Department, Department
            of Sanskrit gave the information related to the
            recommendation of the Department of Sanskrit by apprising
D           that the Academic Qualification of the Karm Kand and for
            the post of Professor of Sanskrit be kept one and the same as
            well as the Specialized experience of karm kand be stipulated
            as compulsory which was passed unanimously”
            18. If only the High Court had looked into the minutes of the
E     meetings of the Academic Council it could have easily appreciated that
      the appellant was entitled to succeed.
              19. Under Section 25(1)(c) of the U.P. University Act, the
      Academic Council is empowered to advise the Executive Council with
      regard to the qualifications required to be possessed by persons imparting
F     instructions on particular subjects. Therefore, the minutes of the meetings
      of the Academic Council dated 22.08.2013 has clinched the issue in
      favour of the appellant. Hence it is time for the University to put an end
      to this ‘Yuddh Kand’ and allow the appellant to move from ‘Karm Kand’
      to ‘Karm Phal Kand’.
G            20. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the
      High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant before
      the High Court is allowed, as prayed for. In view of the fact (i) that the
      appellant has been teaching the very same subject for the past nearly 16
      years; and (ii) that the original Selection Committee which found him
      eligible for appointment, comprised of Professors from the Department
H
        DINESH CHANDRA SHUKLA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                      825
                 [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.]

of Sanskrit of which the diploma course in ‘Karm Kand’ was a part, a       A
direction is issued to the 5th respondent-University to regularise the
services of the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs.


Devika Gujral                                            Appeal allowed.
                                                                           B




                                                                           C




                                                                           D




                                                                           E




                                                                           F




                                                                           G




                                                                           H