Holding

A reserve list prepared by a duly constituted Selection Committee remains valid for its prescribed period, and candidates listed therein may be appointed to regular vacancies arising thereafter; the High Court’s view that the reserve list is exhausted after the first appointment was erroneous.

Summary

The University of Rajasthan invited applications for a Professor of Botany and a Selection Committee appointed a candidate from the main list and Dr. Uma Kant to the reserve list. After the initially appointed professor retired, Dr. Kant was appointed from the reserve list. Non‑selected candidates challenged this appointment, and the High Court held that the reserve list became exhausted once the first appointment was made, rendering Dr. Kant’s appointment illegal. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974, particularly Sections 3, 5 and 6(4), and held that a reserve list is prepared to meet future vacancies and remains valid for its prescribed period. The Court rejected the High Court’s narrow interpretation and affirmed that candidates on the reserve list may be appointed to regular vacancies arising during its validity. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and allowed the appeals, confirming Dr. Kant’s appointment as valid.

Issues considered

Whether an appointment from the reserve list is valid under the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974 after an initial appointment has been made.
Whether the reserve list becomes exhausted upon the appointment of the first selected candidate, precluding further appointments from it.
Interpretation of the phrase ‘for every selection’ in Section 5(1) of the Act and its effect on the requirement to constitute a fresh Selection Committee for subsequent vacancies.
Whether Section 6(4) authorises appointments from the reserve list during its period of validity.

Legislation cited

Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 5(1), s. 6(4)

Subjects

reserve listselection committeeuniversity appointmentsRajasthan University Teachers and Officers Actprofessor appointmentstatutory interpretationvalidity of appointment

Judgment

DR. UMA KANT AND ANR. A
v.
a ....i.- DR. BHIKA LAL JAIN AND ORS.

OCTOBER 4, 1991

[M.H. KANIA, N.M. KASLIWAL AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.) B

Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for appoint-
ment) Act, 1974:

Sections 3(1) & 5(1)--Expression 'Appointment' and 'For every selection'- C
Scope of.

Section 6-Appointment of Professor-Selection Committee-Con-
stitution and procedure-Preparation of 'Selection List' and 'Reserve List'
- Approval by University Syndicate-Appointment of candidate included
in the Selection List-Superannuation of appointed candidate-Appoint- D
ment of candidate recommended in the Reserve List- Validity of- Held
with the appointment of candidate included in the Selection List, Rese1Ve
List does not become extinct-Appointment of candidate recommended in
the Reserve List held valid-Purpose of Reserve List explained.
Section 3(1) of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers E
(Selection for Appointment) Act, 1974- provides that no teacher in any
University in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommen-
dations of the Selection Committee constituted under Section 5, and, -
under Section 3(2) any appointment made in contravention of Section 3(1)
is null and void. Section 6(4) of the Act provides that the Selection
Committee, while making its recommendations to the Syndicate, shall F
prepare a list of candidates selected by it in order of merit and shall
further prepare a Reserve List in ~he same order and to the extent of 50%
of the vacancies for the post of teachers or officers.

The University of Rajasthan invited applications for the post of G
Professor in the Department of Botany. The Selection Committee
rec-ommended the name of a candidate in its selection list which was
approved by the University Syndicate and the recommended candidate was
appointed as Professor. The appellant's name was included in the Reserve
List which was to remain valid for one year as _per the Syndicate's H

415
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C."R.

A resolution. Subsequent to the retirement of the initially appointed
Professor, the appellant, who was on the reserve list, was appointed as ... =
Professor. The .non selected candidates challenged the appointment of
initially appointed Professor as well as of the appellant and a Single Judge
of the High Court held the Selection Committee's constitution valid but
B declared the appellant's appointment illegal on the ground that once a
person selected by the Selection Committee is appointed, the reserve list
gets exhausted and the person named in the reserve list cannot be
appointed against a future vacancy.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order
C . of the Single Judge by holding .that once a person selected by the Selection
Committee joins the reserve list becomes extinct and if some vacancy is
caused thereafter, a fresh and de novo Selection Committee procedure is
to be started. Against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court,
appeals were filed in this Court.

D Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the High Court,
this Court,

HELD: 1. A reserve list is always prepared to meet the contingency of
anticipated or future vacancies caused on account of resignation,
E retirement, promotion or otherwise. This is done in view of the fact that it
takes a long time in constituting a fresh Selection Committee whic~ has a
cumbersome procedure and in order to avoid ad hoc appointments
keeping in view the interest of the student community. [422 F]

2. The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the scope
F . of reserve list only against the post for which the selection was made ali.d
which according to it could only be available to the incumbent in the
reserve list if the person recommended in the main list did notjoin such
post. Thus it was wrong in taking the view that a regular vacancy of
Professor having arisen on the retirement of initially appointed Professor,
G again a fresh Selection Committee should h~ve been constituted and no
appointment on such post could have been made from the reserve list
prepared by the Selection Committee. The interpretation given by the High
Court is not borne out from any of the provisions of Section 3(1), Section 5
or sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Rajasthan UniversilJ Teachers and
H Officers (Selection for appointment) Act, 1974. [423 B; 42_2 C-D]
UMA KANT v. B. L JAIN 417

3. Section 5 of the 1974 Act only provides for the constitution of A
.-c. Selection Committee and the words 'for every selection' used in
sub-section (1) of Section 5 only mean that in case of every selection of a
teacher or of an officer in University, a Committee would be constituted of
the persons mentioned in sub- section (i) of the said Section 5. (423-E]

3.1 A reading of Section 5 with Section 6( 4) makes it quite clear that B
the Selection Committee constituted shall recommend not only the
candidates selected by it in order of merit but shall further prepare a
reserve list to the extent of 50% of the vacancies and persons kept in the
reserve list will be considered as having been selected for the concerned
post and shall be entitled for appointment if any vacancy is caused during c
the validity period of the reserve list. The suitability of the persons kept in
the reserve list is also adjudged by the Selection Committee which is
constituted for selection of a teacher in the University. Thus no fault can
be found that the incumbent recommended in the reserve list by the
Selection Committee was not selected for the concerned post of teacher.
(4.23 G-H, 424 A-BJ
D

4. In the instant case, the initially appointed Professor was going to
retire after sometime. Therefore, it was perfectly valid to select one more
person and to keep him in the reserve list for being appointed on the
regular vacancy which was shortly anticipated on account of retirement of E
initially appointed Professor. The Selection Committee appr~ved and
recommended the name of the appellant in the reserve list finding him
suitable for appointment on the post of Professor. The Syndicate which is
the highest executive body in the University had also approved the
appellant's name in the reserve list. Therefore, the selection and
appointment of the appellant is valid. [422 H, 423-A, 422 G, 424 FJ
F

S. It is well settled that in matters relating to educational·
Jris.titutions, if two interpretations are possible, the courts would
ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset
and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such G
educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made.by such
educational authorities. [424 E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4094 &
4095 of 1991.
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1991 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 48 & 50of1990. ,..._

P.P. Rao, M.K. Ramamurthi, S.K. Singh, Sudhanshu Atreya, Sushi!
Kumar Jain, Ms. Bina Gupta, Manoj Swarup, Miss. Lalita Kohli, R.F.
Nariman and Mrs. Binu Tamta for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. Speeial Leaves granted.

Briefly stated the facts are that University of Rajasthan invited ap-
C plications for the post of Professor in the department of Botany. The Selec-
tion Committee constituted under Sec. 5 of .the Rajasthan University
Teachers and Officers (Selection for appointment) Act of 1974 (herein
after referred to as the 'Act of 1974') held interviews on 20th June, 1989
and selected Dr. G.S. Nathawat for the post of Professor in Botany. The
name of Dr. Uma Kant was mentioned in the reserve list by the Selection
Committee. The syndicate of the University approved the list and ap-
D pointed Dr. Nathawat on the said post. Dr. Nathawat retired on 30th Sep-
tember, 1989 and Dr. Uma Kant who was already selected and kept in the
reserve list was appointed as Professor in the department of Botany. Dr.
Bhikalal, Dr. Shiv Sharma, Dr. Sudhakar Mishra and Dr. T.N. Bhardwaj
who were not selected filed a writ petition in the High Court initially chal-
E Ienging the appointment of Dr. Nathawat on the ground that the Selection
Committee was not constituted in accordance with law and objection was
also raised that once a selected person joins the post, the reserve list ex-
hausted itself. Dr. Bhikalal and others subsequently impleaded Dr. Uma
Kant also as one of the respo~dents in the writ petition. The respondents,
in their reply to the writ petition, submitted that the selection committee
. F was properly constituted. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was rightly
made as the life of the reserve list was initially for six months and sub-
sequently extended to one year by a resolution of the Syndicate dated
3.12.1983. Learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection
Committee was valid but as regards the appointment of Dr. Uma Kant
from the reserve list it was held that once a person selected by the Selec-
G tion Committee had been appointed the reserve list stood exhausted and
the person named in the reserve list could not- be appointed against a
future vacancy. The appointment of Dr. Uma Kant was held illegal and it
was directed that Dr. Uma Kant be removed from the said post of Profes-
sor of Botany. Both Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University of Rajasthan
filed special appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of the
H High Court by a common order dated March 6, 1991 upheld the order of
UMA KANf v. B.L JAIN [ KASUWAL,J.) 419

the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals. The Division Bench A
after considering Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974 held that the
purpose of preparation of the reserve list seems to be that if the person
selected at No. 1 does not join then the next man in the reserve list should
be appointed. But if the person selected by the Selection Committee is
given appointment and he joins, then, selection made by the Committee is
exhausted and the reserve list is qf no avail and becomes extinct. It was also B
held that once a person selected by the Selection Committee has joined,
that post is filled and some vacancy is caused thereafter a fresh and de
novo selection committee procedure has to be started because that will be
a case of future vacancy arising after the post had been filled ·up on the
recommendations ·or the Selection Committee. ·
c
Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court,
Dr. Uma Kant as well as the University have come in appeal by grant of
special leave.

In order to appreciate the controversy we would advert to certain
relevant provisions of the Act of 1974. Relevant provisions of Sections 3, 5 D
and 6 are as follows:

Section 3 - Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law, as
from the commencement of this Act, no teacher and no of6cer
in any University in Rajastban shall be appointed except on the E
recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted
under Sec. 5.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-s. (3), every appointment
of a teacher or of an officer in any University made in con-
travention of sub-s. (1) shall be null and void.
F
Section 5 - Constitution of Selection Committee

(1) For every selection of a teacher or of an officer in a Univer-
sity, there shall be constituted a committee consisting of die
following: -
G
(i) Vice Chancellor of the University concerned, who shall be
the Chairman of the Committee;

(ii) an eminent educati0nist to be nominated by the Chancellor
for a period of one year;
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R..

A (iii) an eminent educationist to be nominated by the State
Government for a period of one year;

(iv) One member of the Syndicate to be nominated by the State
Government for a period of one year; and

B (v) such other persons as members specified in column 2 of
the Schedule for the selection of the teachers and officers men-
tioned in column 1 thereof. ·

Section 6 - Procedure of Selection Committee

(1) The quorum required for the meeting ofa selection com-
c mittee constituted under Section 5 shall not be less than five,
out of which at least tWo shall be the experts, if the selection to
be made is for the post of a lecturer or any other post of a
teacher equivalent thereto. The quorum required for the meet-
ing of a selection committee for the selection of non-teaching
D posts shall be not less than one half of the number of members
of the Selection Committee, out of which-at least one shall be
an expert.

(2) The selection committee shall make its recommendations
to the Syndicate, if the Syndicate disapproves the recommen-
E dations of the selection committee, the Vice-Chance11or of the
·University concerned shall submit such recommendations
alongwith reasons for disapproval given by the syndicate to cne
Chance11or for his consideration and the decision of the Chan-
ce11or thereon shall be final.

F (3) Every selection committee shall be bound by the qualifica-
tions laid down in the relevant law of the University concerned
for the post of a teacher, as the case may be, of an officer.

(4) The Selection Committee while making its recommenda-
tion~ to the Syndicate under sub-section (2) sha11 prepare a list
of candidates'selection by it in order of merit and shall further
G prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of
50% of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for
which the selection committee was constituted under sub-sec-
tion (1) of Sedion 5 and sha11 forward the main list and the
reserve list alongwith its recommendations to the Syndicate.
H
UMA KANf v. B. L JAIN ( KASUWAI., J.] 421

Initially the reserve list was to remain valid upto six months from the A
date of approval of the Syndicate as per the resolution of the Syndicate
dated 10th July, 1978 and subsequently the Syndicate by its resolution
passed in its special meeting on 3.12.1983 decided that the reserve list
recommended by the Selection Committee for selection of employee be
treated valid for one year instead of six months. According to the Univer-
sity. this was done in order to .curtail th~ ad-hoc appointments and also B
because the regular selections take a lot of time. It may also be noted that
the Syndicate in its meeting held on .10th July, 1978 had resolved as under:

i. Every Selection Committee may draw a Reserve List of suitable
candidates upto a number not exceeding 50% of the number of post
for which vacancies exist (part vacancy be rounded or to the next C
whole ~umber) and place them in order of priority.

ii. The Reserve List of drawn be treated valid upto six months the date
of approval by the Syndicate of the recommendations of the selection
committee(s). D
iii. On the vacancies caused within the cadre during six months of the
approval of the recommendations, the candidates found suitable and
placed in the reserve list be appointed in the order of priority given
by the Selection Committee. E
As already mentioned above the period of' six months was sub-
sequently extended to one year by resolution dated 3.12.1983. The Univer-
sity has taken a categorical stand that since 1978 not only in the University
of Rajasthan but all other universities in the State of Rajasthan reserve lists
are prepared and appointments are being made. from the reserve list F
against hlture vacancies arising on account of resignation, retirement or
promotion. A long list of appointments made from reserve list in various
departments of the University of Rajasthan from time to time after joining
of the persons from the main list from 1978 to 1990 have been furnished by
the appellants before this court by an additional affidavit. It has also been
stated that even out of the petitioners who had filed the writ petition, Dr. G
T.N. Bhardwaj himself was kept in the reserve list and was thereafter ap-
pointed on the post of reader having fallen vacant subsequently on account
of the promotion of Dr. P. Khanna as Professor.

Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1974 puts a restriction that no teacher in
any university in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommenda- H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A tions of the Selection Committee constituted under Sec. 5 (1), and, under
Sec. 3(2) any appointment made in contravention of sub- section (1) of sec.
3 shall be null and void. In the present case Dr. Uma Kant was recom-
mended by the Selection Committee constituted under Section 5. Sec. 5
only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee. The High Court
has found that there was no violation of Section 5 in the Constitution of the
B Selection Comm~ttee and the said finding has not been challenged before '
'

us on behalf of the respondents. Section 6 provides for the procedure of
Selection Committee and sub-section (4) of Section 6 clearly provides that
the Selection Committee shall prepare a liSt of candidates selected by it in
order of merit and shall further prepare reserve list in the same order and
to the extent of 50% of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for
C which the Selection Committee was constituted. The Syndicate in its
Resolution dated 10th July, 1978 had resolved that the reserve list recom-
mended by the Selection Committee shall be valid upto six months from
the date of the approval of the Syndicate which was subsequently extended
to one year instead of six months in a resolution passed on 3.12.1983. In our
view the High Court was wrong in taking the view that a regular vacancy of
D Professor having arisen on the retirement of Dr. G.S. Nathawat on 30th
September, 1989 again a fresh Selection Committee should have been
constituted and no appointment on such post could have been made from
,_ ___
the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June, 1989.
Section 6(4) clearly provided for the preparation of reserve list to the
extent of 50% of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for which
E the Selection Committee was constituted. It is not in dispute that the main
list and the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June,
1989 were approved by the Syndicate. We agree with the contention of the
university that a reserve list is always prepared to meet the contingency of
anticipated or future vacancies caused on account of resignation, retire-
F . ment, promotion or otherwise. This is done in view of the fact that it takes a
long time in constituting a fresh Selection Committee which has a cumber-
some procedure and in order to avoid ad-hoc appointments keeping in
view the interest of the student community. The Selection Committee in
the present case was constituted for the selection of Professor in Botany
and such Selection Committee had approved and recommended the name
G of the appellant Dr. Uma Kant in the reserve list finding him suitable for
appointment on the post of Professor in Botany. The Syndicate which is the
highest executive body in the university had also approved the name of Dr.
Uma Kant in the reserve list which remained valid upto one year and we
cannot accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the
reserve list is exhausted as soon as the person recommended in the main
H list joined the post. In the present case Dr. G8. Nathawat was selected on
UMA KANT v. B.L JAIN [ KASUWAL,J.) 423

20th June, i989 and was going to retire on 30th September, 1989 and in A
these circumstances it was J)erfectly valid to select one more person and to
keep him in the reserve list for being appointed on the regular vacancy
which was shortly anticipated on account of retirement of Dr. Nathawat.
The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the scope of reserve
list only against the post for which the selection was made and which
according to the High Court could only be availaple to the incumbent in B
the reserve list if the person recommended in the main list did not join such
post. Such interpretation is not borne out from any of the provisions of
Section 3(1), Section 5 or sub-s. (4) of Section 6 of the Act of 1974. The
High Court took the .view that the expression 'appointment' in sub-sec. (1)
of Sec. 3 shall mean appointed initially. Then, sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5
provides that for every selection of a teacher in university, there shall be C
constituted a Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein. The
High Court held that the words "for every selection" are very pertinent and
when read with Sec. 3(1) and 3(2), it only means that whenever there is a
regular vacancy for a post, a Selection Committee has to be constituted.
When Dr. G.S. Nathawat retired on 30th September, 1989, a regular vacan-
cy arose and therefore a Selection Committee should have been con- D
stituted afresh.

In our view the High Court was wrong in taking the aforesaid view.
Sec. 5 only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee and the
words "for every selection" used in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 5 only mean that in
case of every selection of a teacher or of an officer in university, a Commit- E
tee would be constituted of the persons mentioned in sub-clause (i) to (v)
of the said Section. So far as the present case is concerned, even the High
Court has arrived to the conclusion that the Committee constituted for the
selection of a professor in Botany was proper and in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act of 1974. The appellant, Dr. Uma.Kant was
found suitable for the post-of professor in Botany and his name was recom- F
mended in the reserve list by the duly constituted Selection Committee.
Sec. 6( 4) of the Act of 1974 clearly provides that the Selection Committee
while making its recommendations to the syndicate under sub-sec. (2) shall,
prepare a list of candidates selected by it in order of merit and shall further ·
prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of 50% of the
vacancies for the post of teachers or officers. Thus a reading of Sec. 5 with G
Sec. 6( 4) makes it quite clear that the Selection Committee constituted
shall recommend not only the candidates selected by it in order of merit
but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50% of the val:ancies
and persons kept in the reserve list will be considered as having been
selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment if any
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991} SUPP. 1 S. C.R.

A vacancy is caused during the validity period of the rese~e list. The
suitability of the persons kept in the reserve list is also adjudged by the )--
. Selection Committee which is constituted for selection of a teacher in the
university. Thus no fault can be found that the incumbent recommended in
the reserve list by the Selection Committee was not selected for the con-
cerned post of teacher. In our view the very purp0se of preparing a reserve
B list would be defeated if tpe view taken by the High Court is accepted that
once a person selected by the selection committee has joined that post then
selection made by the Committee is exhaU$ted and the reserve list is of no
avail and becomes extinct. There was no meaning or purpose of keeping r
the reserve list alive for a long period of one year, as no person selected for
the post can at all be expected not to join for such a long period of one
C year.
If we examine the matter from another angle, it would be clear that
according to the university such a procedure is in vogue in all the univer-
sities of Rajasthan that a reserve list is used for the appointment on a
vacant post caused during the validity period of the reserve list, and
D numerous appointments had been made in the last decade from the reserve
list. The university has also submitted that if the view taken by the High
Court is held to be correct, it will create chaotic situation in the university
as all appointments so far made from the reserve list will become assail-
able. It is well settled that in matters relating to educational institutions, if
two interpretations are possible, the c~urts would ordinarily be reluctant to
E accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long oourse
of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would
accept the interpretation .made by such educational authorities.
y·
In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned Judg-
ment of the High Court and hold the selection and appointment of the
F appellant, Dr. Uma Kant as valid on the post of Professor in Botany in the
University of Rajasthan.

T.N.A Appeals allowed. ·