POORAN CHANDversusCHANCELLOR & ORS.

782                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 782
                              REPORTS                       [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A                             POORAN CHAND
                                       v.
                           CHANCELLOR & ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 268-269 of 2021)
B                              JANUARY 29, 2021
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
                             AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
             King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002:
      s.53 – Applications invited for the post of Assistant Professors,
C     Professors, Associate Professor and Lecturers – Appellant applied
      for the post of Assistant Professor whereas respondent no. 4 applied
      for the post of Lecturer – Appellant was selected and joined as
      Assistant Professor on 08.12.2005 – Respondent no. 4 joined as
      Lecturer on 8.8.2005 – Respondent no. 4 was promoted on the post
D     of Assistant Professor on 8.8.2007 – Representations were submitted
      by respondent no. 4 to the university claiming seniority over the
      appellant based on his experience at the time of appointment as
      Senior Research Fellow in WHO – Chancellor rejected the
      representation of respondent no. 4 referring to the report sent by
      the University that experience as senior Research Fellow in WHO
E     cannot be counted as experience – Respondent no. 4 filed writ
      petition – In writ petition, both the appellant as well as University
      contested the claim of respondent no. 4 – High Court allowed the
      writ petition – On appeal, held: s.53 provides that if any question
      arises as to whether any person has been duly elected or appointed,
F     the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, and the decision of
      the Chancellor thereon shall be final – s.53 also contains proviso
      to the effect that no reference in this Section shall be made more
      than three months after the date when question could have been
      raised for the first time – The object and purpose for entertaining
      any question regarding appointment within a period of three months
G     is that the members of the teaching faculty of the University be it
      Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which
      is to be imparted according to academic calendar and it is in the
      interest of the University that all doubts regarding appointment of
      teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early
      decision by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the
H
                                        782
          POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                              783


University – The present is not a case where appointment of appellant    A
was cancelled by any competent authority – Appellant was
appointed, recommended by Selection Committee with due approval
of the Executive Council and the appointment was made after
advertisement – Challenge to appointment after more than three
years cannot be entertained as respondent No.4 in his representation
                                                                         B
before the Chancellor never challenged the appointment of
appellant as Assistant Professor and had filed representation only
claiming seniority over appellant after he got promoted as Assistant
Professor himself in the year 2007 – Therefore, High Court ought
not to have entertained the challenge to the appointment of appellant
and ought to have confined the consideration of claim of respondent      C
No.4 for seniority over the appellant – When the appointment of
appellant was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions
of the Act, 2002, it is not in the ends of justice to permit the
respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in the High Court
in the writ petition for the first time, after more than four years of
                                                                         D
the appointment – There was no error in the order of the Chancellor
rejecting the representation made by the respondent No.4 – Service
law – Seniority – Universities – Education/Educational Institutions.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1. There is no dispute to the fact that in pursuance          E
of advertisement, both appellant and respondent No.4 had
applied respectively for the post of Assistant Professor and
Lecturer and Selection Committee recommended their
appointment and Executive Council in the meeting dated
08.08.2005 approved the recommendations of Selection
Committee appointing appellant as Assistant Professor and                F
respondent No.4 as Lecturer. [Para 9][791-D-E]
      2. The University in its counter affidavit has relied and
referred to Section 53 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2002. Section 53
provides that if any question arises whether any person has been
duly elected or appointed, the matter shall be referred to the           G
Chancellor, and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be
final. The Section also contains proviso to the effect that no
reference in this Section shall be made more than three months

                                                                         H
784            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     after the date when question could have been raised for the first
      time. Although, by the second proviso, Chancellor can entertain
      a reference after expiry of the said period. There is an object and
      purpose for entertaining any question regarding appointment of
      member of any authority or body whether any person has been
      duly appointed within a period of three months. The members of
B
      the teaching faculty of the University be it Lecturer or Assistant
      Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted
      according to academic calendar. It is in the interest of the
      University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are
      raised within a period of three months to have an early decision
C     by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the University.
      [Paras 10, 11][791-E; 792-C-F]
             3. From the facts, which have been brought on record, it is
      clear that the reference to the Chancellor was made by
      respondent No.4 only on 13.02.2009, i.e., subsequent to he was
D     promoted as Assistant Professor. Chancellor in his order has
      noticed the substance of claim of respondent No.4. Respondent
      No.4 has claimed to include the experience of Senior Research
      Fellow in W.H.O. Respondent No.4 had submitted his
      representation to the Chancellor regarding seniority over the
      appellant and the appellant’s appointment as Assistant Professor
E     w.e.f. 08.08.2005 was not challenged. Respondent No.4 wanted
      that his experience as Senior Research Fellow in W.H.O. be also
      included, which was not acceded to. Section 53 of the Act, 2002
      provides that any dispute regarding appointment in the University
      has to be raised within a period of three months, the respondent
F     No.4 could not have raised any challenge to the appointment of
      appellant after lapse of more than three years. The Chancellor
      considered the representation of the respondent No.4 and
      decided it on merits, since the Chancellor was of the view that
      the claim is essentially of seniority by respondent No.4 over the
      appellant. Thus, the appointment of appellant as Assistant
G     Professor, which is approved on 08.08.2005 was not challenged
      or questioned by respondent No.4 in accordance with provisions
      of the Act, 2002. Although, in the writ petition filed by respondent
      No.4, he has made a prayer for quashing the appointment order

H
         POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                            785


dated 08.08.2005 of the appellant as Assistant Professor but the      A
appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor having not been
challenged before the Chancellor, he could not have been
permitted to challenge the appointment of appellant. Appointment
dated 08.08.2005 could not be allowed to be challenged after four
years in the writ petition. [Paras 12, 15, 16][792-F-G; 794-B-F]
                                                                      B
      4. The appellant is right in her submission that it was after
respondent No.4 was promoted as Assistant Professor, he
submitted representations and claimed before the Chancellor
seniority over the appellant. The prayer of the respondent No.4
that appellant should be reverted on the post of Lecturer could
not have been entertained. There is no question of reversion of       C
the appellant on the post of Lecturer when he was appointed as
Assistant Professor on 08.08.2005. [Paras 17, 18][794-G-H;
795-C-D]
      5. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that when
the appointment is made in infraction of the recruitment rules,       D
the same would be liable to be cancelled. The present is not a
case where appointment of appellant was cancelled by any
competent authority. The appellant was appointed, recommended
by Selection Committee with due approval of the Executive
Council and the appointment was made after due advertisement.         E
[Para 21][796-E-F]
      6. The Act which governs the appointment of Assistant
Professors and Lecturers in the University itself provides a
mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation
to the Chancellor that too within a period of three months. Any       F
challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be
entertained as already held that respondent No.4 in his
representation before the Chancellor never challenged the
appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor and had filed
representation only claiming seniority over appellant after he got
promoted as Assistant Professor himself in the year 2007, High        G
Court ought not to have entertained the challenge to the
appointment of appellant in the writ petition and ought to have
confined the consideration of claim of respondent No.4 for
seniority over the appellant. When the appointment of appellant
                                                                      H
786            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions of
      the Act, 2002, it is not in the ends of justice to permit the
      respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in the High Court
      in the writ petition for the first time, after more than four years of
      the appointment. [Para 26][798-C-F]
B           7. The High Court committed an error in quashing the
      appointment of respondent No.4 as Assistant Professor, quashing
      the order of the Chancellor as well as direction to treat the
      appellant as being appointed as a Lecturer. There was no error
      in the order of the Chancellor rejecting the representation made
      by the respondent No.4, which representation was referable to
C     Section 53 of Act No. 8 of 2002. High Court committed error in
      quashing the order as well as issuing directions. [Para 27]
      [798-F-G]
            Nagendra Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and
            Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 798 : [2007] 12 SCR 608;
D           Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. K.
            Brahmanandam and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 241 : [2008] 7
            SCR 140 – distinguished.
            Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services
            Commission and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 153 : [2008] 4 SCR
E           559 – held inapplicable
            State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors.
            (2015) 15 SCC 602 : [2015] 12 SCR 285 – referred to
                             Case Law Reference
F     [2007] 12 SCR 608               distinguished           Para 19
      [2008] 7 SCR 140                distinguished           Para 22
      [2008] 4 SCR 559                held inapplicable       Para 23
      [2015] 12 SCR 285               referred to             Para 25
G           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 268-
      269 of 2021.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2018 and 15.03.2019
      of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in C.M.
      Application No. 75983 of 2018 in Service Bench No. 1350 of 2009.
H
          POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                               787


      S.R. Singh, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., Ms. Shikha              A
Shrivastava, Ms. Ruchie Shrivastava, S.K. Singh Kalhans, Ms. Prachi
Pratap, Ms. Pallavi Pratap, M/s Pratap And Co., Ms. Neela Gokhale,
Ms. Shruti Dixit, Harshal Gupta, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Vishnu
Shankar Jain, Devvrat, Ms. Swati Setia, Aditya Kr. Dubey, Subas Ray,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
                                                                          B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals have been filed challenging the Division Bench    C
judgment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
dated 12.04.2018 by which writ petition filed by respondent No.4 has
been allowed and the order of the Chancellor dated 08.07.2009 rejecting
the representation made by respondent No.4 was set aside.
      3. Brief facts of the case for deciding these appeals are:          D
      3.1 King George Medical University is a Medical University under
      the by U.P. Act No.8 of 2002 namely the King George Medical
      University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act, 2002. An advertisement dated
      15.03.2005 was issued by U.P. King George’s University of Dental
      Sciences, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “University”)
                                                                          E
      inviting applications for the post of Professors, Associate
      Professors, Asstt. Professors and Lecturers.
      3.2 The appellant made an application for appointment on the
      post of Assistant Professor whereas respondent No.4 made an
      application for appointment on the post of Lecturer. Both the
                                                                          F
      appellant and respondent No.4 were considered by the same
      Selection Committee and recommendations of the Selection
      Committee were approved by Executive Council in its meeting
      dated 08.08.2005 approving the appointment of appellant as
      Assistant Professor and that of respondent No.4 as Lecturer. The
      appellant, who was working as Assistant Professor in BRD            G
      Medical College, Gorakhpur after obtaining permission from State
      of U.P. joined as Assistant Professor on 08.12.2005.
      3.3 The respondent No.4 submitted his joining as Lecturer on
      08.08.2005. The respondent No.4 was promoted on the post of
      Assistant Professor on 08.08.2007 after completing three years      H
788      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     experience. The representations were submitted by respondent
      No.4 to the University claiming seniority over the appellant. A
      representation was addressed by respondent No.4 to the
      Chancellor dated 13.02.2009 regarding the appointment and claim
      of seniority as Assistant Professor in the University. The
      respondent No.4 claimed that his experience at the time of
B
      appointment as Senior Research Fellow in W.H.O. was not
      considered. His representation to the Chancellor principally claimed
      seniority over appellant based on his experience claiming that he
      has also completed requisite experience at the time of his
      appointment on the post of Assistant Professor.
C     3.4 The Chancellor vide his order dated 08.07.2009 rejected the
      representation made by respondent No.4. The Chancellor in his
      order referred to the report sent by the University that experience
      of the appellant as Senior Research fellow in W.H.O. cannot be
      counted as experience. Aggrieved by the order of the Chancellor
D     dated 08.07.2009 rejecting his claim, the respondent No.4 filed a
      writ petition being Writ Petition No.1350(SB) of 2009 praying for
      following reliefs:-
         “i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
             08.07.2009 passed by Opp. Party No.1 and impugned
E            appointment order dated 08.08.2005 of OPP. Party no.4 as
             Asstt. Professor contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to the
             writ petition.
         ii. issue a writ of mandamus / prohibition commanding the OPP.
             Party No. 1 to 3 to revert, back the OPP. Party NO.4 from
F            the post of Asstt. Professor and post him in the post Lecturer
             from the date of joining forthwith.
         iii. issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Opp. Party No.1
              to 3 to declare the petitioner senior to the Opp. Party No.4
              with all consequential service benefits.
G        iv. issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Opp. Parties to
             count the period of Senior Research Fellow as teaching
             experience in promoting the petitioner, as Asstt. Professor.
         v. any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court
            deem fit in the circumstances of the case may also be
H           passed.
           POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                                    789
                  [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

          vi. Allow the Writ Petition with cost.”                               A
      3.5 In the writ petition both the appellant as well as University has
      filed their counter affidavit and contested the claim of the
      respondent No.4. Division Bench of the High Court vide its
      impugned judgment dated 12.04.2018 allowed the writ petition.
      The operative portion of the order of the High Court is as follows:-      B
          “The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated
          8.7.2009 passed by the Chancellor is hereby quashed and the
          University concerned is directed to treat opposite party no.4
          having been appointed initially on the post of Lecturer in
          accordance with his qualification. Consequences shall follow          C
          accordingly. However, no recovery shall be made from opposite
          party no.4 from the payment made to him on account of said
          initial appointment on the post of Assistant Professor.”
      3.6 The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court
      has come up in these appeals.                                             D
       4. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel
for the appellant. Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No.4. Shri Vishnu Shankar Jain, learned counsel has appeared
for respondent No.3.
        5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant        E
had started working in the University as Assistant Professor in BRD
Medical College from 19.07.2003 to 07.12.2005. It is submitted that prior
to his deputation in BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur, he was a member
of Provincial Medical Services w.e.f. 01.09.1992 and had been working
for more than a decade as Dental Surgeon. It is submitted that Selection        F
Committee after considering the service experience and working of the
appellant found him eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, and
recommended as Assistant Professor, who was appointed as such. It is
submitted that the respondent No.4 did not fulfil qualifications of Assistant
Professor since at the time of application, he had only one year’s
experience, hence, he rightly applied for the post of Lecturer only. It is      G
submitted that the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor
was never challenged by respondent No.4 and it is with regard to claim
of seniority of respondent No.4 over the appellant he submitted his
representation both to the University and the Chancellor. Representation
to the Chancellor was also submitted after more than three years from
                                                                                H
790            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     the appointment of the appellant and representations were submitted by
      respondent No.4 only when he was promoted as Assistant Professor in
      the year 2007. It is submitted that High Court committed error in
      entertaining the challenge to the appointment of appellant as Assistant
      Professor whereas appointment was never challenged before the
      Chancellor or within a reasonable period by the writ petition, which was
B
      filed in the year 2009. The respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to
      challenge the appointment of appellant after a period of more than four
      years. It is submitted that the appellant was senior to the respondent
      No.4 right from the very beginning and the claim of respondent No.4
      regarding seniority of the appellant was misconceived and the dispute
C     was initiated by respondent No.4 only for purpose of claiming himself to
      be senior to the appellant. The appellant fulfilled the qualifications for
      appointment on the post of Assistant Professor and has been working on
      his post since the date of joining.
             6. Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
D     respondent No.4 submitted that the experience of the appellant as
      member of Provincial Medical Services was wholly irrelevant for the
      purpose of appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. At best, the
      appellant’s experience as Assistant Professor in BRD Medical College,
      Gorakhpur in Department of Dentistry from 19.07.2003 to 07.12.2005
      can be taken into consideration, which is only two years four months
E     and 19 days, which was less than three years, hence, he did not fulfil the
      eligibility for the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. Shri
      S.R. Singh submitted that the appellant, who did not fulfil the eligibility
      for the post of Assistant Professor, his appointment on the post of
      Assistant Professor was void and is nullity and the decision of the High
F     Court holding that respondent No.4 not eligible is correct, which needs
      no interference by this Court.
            7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
      the parties and have perused the records.
             8. For the post of Assistant Professor and Lecturer advertised by
G     advertisement dated 15.03.2005 qualifications were referred to as
      qualifications required as in the first Statute of Lucknow University.
      Section 42 of the Act, 2002 provided for first Statutes of the University.
      The Section further provided that for so long as the First Statutes are not
      so made, the Statutes of the Lucknow University as in force immediately
H     before the appointed date in so far as they are not so inconsistent with
          POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                                   791
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

the provisions of the Act, 2002, shall, subject to such adaptations and       A
modifications, continue in force. The relevant Statute of the Lucknow
University, which provides for qualification for the post of Assistant
Professor is Statute 11.02 B2, which is to the following effect:-
      “11.02 B2. Assistant Professor: MDS or equivalent degree as
      recognised by the Dental Council of India in the subject concerned      B
      with at least three years teaching experience as Lecturer/Chief
      Resident/Senior Resident/ Demonstrator / Tutor or equivalent after
      obtaining MDS degree in the subject concerned.
      Provided that if suitable candidates with requisite teaching
      experience are not available the selection committee may                C
      recommend candidates for appointment in lower grade i.e.
      Lecturers.”
      9. There is no dispute to the fact that in pursuance of advertisement
dated 15.03.2005 both appellant and respondent No.4 had applied
respectively for the post of Assistant Professor and Lecturer and Selection   D
Committee recommended their appointment and Executive Council in
the meeting dated 08.08.2005 approved the recommendations of Selection
Committee appointing appellant as Assistant Professor and respondent
No.4 as Lecturer.
        10. The University in its counter affidavit has relied and referred   E
to Section 53 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 2002. Section 53 of the Act, 2002
is as follows:-
      “53- If any question arises whether any person has been duly
      elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be a member of any
      authority or other body of the University (including any question       F
      as to the validity of a Statute, Ordinance or Regulation, not being
      a Statute or Ordinance made or approved by the State
      Government or by the Chancellor) is in conformity with this Act
      or the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder, the matter
      shall be referred to the Chancellor, and the decision of the
      Chancellor thereon shall be final:                                      G
      Provided that no reference under this section shall be made-
          (a) more than three months after the date when the question
          could have been raised for the first time,
                                                                              H
792            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A               (b) by any person other than an authority or officer of the
                University or a person aggrieved:
            Provided further that the Chancellor may in exceptional
            circumstances-
                (a) act suo motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of
B               the period mentioned in the preceding proviso,
                (b) where the matter referred relates to a dispute about the
                election, and the eligibility of the persons so elected is in doubt,
                pass such orders of stay as he thinks just and expedient.”

C            11. Section 53 provides that if any question arises whether any
      person has been duly elected or appointed, the matter shall be referred
      to the Chancellor, and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be
      final. The Section also contains proviso to the effect that no reference in
      this Section shall be made more than three months after the date when
      question could have been raised for the first time. Although, by the second
D     proviso, Chancellor can entertain a reference after expiry of the said
      period. There is an object and purpose for entertaining any question
      regarding appointment of member of any authority or body whether any
      person has been duly appointed within a period of three months. The
      members of the teaching faculty of the University be it Lecturer or
E     Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted
      according to academic calendar. It is in the interest of the University
      that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a
      period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give
      quietus to the disputes in the University.

F            12. From the facts, which have been brought on record, it is clear
      that the reference to the Chancellor was made by respondent No.4 only
      on 13.02.2009, i.e., subsequent to he was promoted as Assistant Professor.
      Chancellor in his order has noticed the substance of claim of respondent
      No.4. Respondent No.4 has claimed to include the experience of Senior
      Research Fellow in W.H.O. The respondent No.4 has complained non-
G     consideration of experience as Senior Research Fellow with the W.H.O.
      in his experience for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor.
      Chancellor noticed the stand of the University with regard to claim of
      respondent No.4 to include his experience as Senior Research Fellow in
      W.H.O. and made following observations:-
H
          POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                                    793
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      “The University has informed that the experience of Dr. Rao for          A
      his service with the WHO as Senior Research fellow in the
      teaching experience was not considered for the appointment on
      the post of Assistant Professor because there is no such scheme
      in the bylaws. The applications sent by Dr. Rao time to time had
      been disposed off. The university has also informed that case of
                                                                               B
      Dr. Amit Nagar and Dr. G.K. Singh has no similarity with the
      case of the complainant and the case of Dr. Nagar is different.
      At the end the statement of the university is that Dr. Rao has
      presented applications without knowing the truth of the facts
      mentioned therein and that through unauthorised manner and since
      the above case of Dr. Rao is meritless, having no force and based        C
      on the false facts and causing disillusion hence it has been
      requested to reject the complaint.”
       13. The Chancellor has further observed that the respondent No.4
has mainly requested to establish his seniority over the appellant. In the
last paragraph of the order, Chancellor has made following observations:-      D

      “The respondent has mainly requested to establish his seniority
      against the respondent Dr. Puran Chand and has mainly stated
      that his experience as Senior Research Fellow with Government
      of India and WHO has not been counted as experience by the
      Medical University. In the report sent by the vice chancellor of         E
      the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow
      in this regard, it has been clarified that in section 10.01 (A) of the
      First bylaws of the Lucknow University which has been currently
      made applicable to the Medical University also there is no provision
      for considering the services done with WHO as Senior Research            F
      Fellow. The reason given by the university is as per the law and
      the present application lacking force is rejected.”
      14. The copy of the complaint to the Chancellor which was filed
on behalf of respondent No.4 has not been brought by the respondent
No.4 on the record, but after perusal of the order of the Chancellor, the      G
main grievance of the respondent No.4 was non-inclusion of his teaching
experience, as Senior Research Fellow in W.H.O. and his claim of
seniority over the appellant. The respondent No.4 has filed a counter
affidavit in this appeal where in paragraph No.9, following has been
pleaded by respondent No.4:-
                                                                               H
794             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           “9. That in respect of the seniority between the answering
            respondent and Dr. Pooran Chand, a representation was submitted
            by the answering respondent before the University; but the same
            was not considered and as such the answering respondent
            approached the Hon’ble Chancellor as per the provisions of Section
            68 of the State Universities Act, 1973.”
B
             15. From the facts as noticed above and the pleadings of the
      respondent No.4 in paragraph 9 of his counter affidavit, it is clear that
      the respondent No.4 had submitted his representation to the Chancellor
      regarding seniority over the appellant and the appellant’s appointment as
      Assistant Professor w.e.f. 08.08.2005 was not challenged. Respondent
C     No.4 wanted that his experience as Senior Research Fellow in W.H.O.
      be also included, which was not acceded to. Section 53 of the Act, 2002
      as noticed above when provides that any dispute regarding appointment
      in the University has to be raised within a period of three months, the
      respondent No.4 could not have raised any challenge to the appointment
D     of appellant after lapse of more than three years. The Chancellor
      considered the representation of the respondent No.4 and decided it on
      merits, since the Chancellor was of the view that the claim is essentially
      of seniority by respondent No.4 over the appellant.
            16. We, thus, are of the view that the appointment of appellant as
E     Assistant Professor, which is approved on 08.08.2005 was not challenged
      or questioned by respondent No.4 in accordance with provisions of the
      Act, 2002. Although, in the writ petition filed by respondent No.4, he has
      made a prayer for quashing the appointment order dated 08.08.2005 of
      the appellant as Assistant Professor but we are of the view that the
      appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor having not been
F     challenged before the Chancellor, he could not have been permitted to
      challenge the appointment of appellant. Appointment dated 08.08.2005
      could not be allowed to be challenged after four years in the writ petition.
              17. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in her submission
      that it was after respondent No.4 was promoted as Assistant Professor,
G     he submitted representations and claimed before the Chancellor seniority
      over the appellant. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, details
      of the representations, which were given by respondent No.4 to the
      Chancellor have also been mentioned in paragraph 2.9, which are to the
      following effect:-
H
          POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                                 795
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      “2.9 That Dr. Jitendra Kumar Rao preferred a representation to        A
      His Excellency, the Chancellor of K.G.M.U. on 13.02.2009 with
      the following prayer:-
         (a) My seniority in the department as Assistant Professor may
         be looked at.
         (b) The seniority of Dr. Pooran Chand may be reverted back         B
         as per rules.
         (c) If some conspiracy to hide the facts in the appointment of
         Dr. Pooran Chand is proved, then an appropriate action should
         be taken against concern person.”
                                                                            C
       18. The prayer of the respondent No.4 that appellant should be
reverted on the post of Lecturer could not have been entertained. There
is no question of reversion of the appellant on the post of Lecturer when
he was appointed as Assistant Professor on 08.08.2005.
       19. Now, we may notice the judgments, which have been relied         D
by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 in support of his
submissions. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has placed
reliance on judgment of this Court in Nagendra Chandra and Ors. Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 798. The above case
related to the appointment on the vacancy for the post of Constables.
The vacancies were neither advertised through the Employment Exchange       E
nor in a newspaper, which was a requirement of Rule 663(d) of Bihar
Police Manual but was displayed only on the notice board. The appellants
of the said case, who were appointed without advertisement of the
vacancy, were dismissed from service. The writ petition was filed, which
too was dismissed. Challenging the order of the High Court, the appeal      F
was filed before this Court. Paragraph 3 of the judgment notices the
submissions, which is to the following effect:-
      “3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
      submitted that though the vacancies were neither advertised
      through the employment exchange nor in any newspaper, as
                                                                            G
      required under Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual, but as the
      same were displayed on the noticeboard, it cannot be said that
      there was infraction of the said Rule; as such the services of the
      appellants should not have been terminated, more so when they
      have continued in service for a period of fourteen years. On the
                                                                            H
796            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
            Jharkhand submitted that as the appointments, being in infraction
            of Rule 663(d), were illegal, the competent authority was quite
            justified in terminating services of the appellants.”
             20. In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, this Court laid down
B     following:-
            “9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no option but to
            hold that if an appointment is made in infraction of the recruitment
            rules, the same would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
            Constitution and being nullity would be liable to be cancelled. In
C           the present case, as the vacancies were not advertised in the
            newspapers, the appointments made were not only in infraction
            of Rule 663(d) of the Bihar Police Manual but also violative of
            Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which rendered the
            appointments of the appellants as illegal; as such the competent
            authority was quite justified in terminating their services and the
D           High Court, by the impugned order, was quite justified in upholding
            the same.”
             21. There cannot be any dispute to the preposition that when the
      appointment is made in infraction of the recruitment rules, the same
      would be liable to be cancelled. The present is not a case where
E     appointment of appellant was cancelled by any competent authority. The
      appellant was appointed, recommended by Selection Committee with
      due approval of the Executive Council and the appointment was made
      after due advertisement. The above judgment, thus, is distinguishable
      and does not help the respondent No.4.
F            22. Another judgment relied by learned counsel for the respondent
      No.4 is Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. K.
      Brahmanandam and Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 241, which was a case
      where management neither obtained the prior permission of school
      authorities nor advertised the vacancy in two newspapers and made
G     appointment. The appointees, i.e., Secondary Grade Teachers filed
      representations for their salary, which was rejected by the District
      Education Officer. A writ petition was filed, which petition was allowed
      directing for their continuance. In the appeal filed by the State, the
      judgment of the High Court was set aside. This Court held that the
      appointments made in violation of the mandatory provisions of a Statute
H
          POORAN CHAND v. CHANCELLOR & ORS.                                    797
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

would be illegal and, thus, void. There can be no dispute to the above         A
preposition but the above was a case where the appointment of the
teachers were neither approved nor was made in accordance with the
statutory rules, hence, this Court took the view that they are not entitled
for any salary from the State and it was school authorities to pay their
salary.
                                                                               B
       23. Another judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.4 is Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education
Services Commission and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 153, which was also
a case of a teacher, who had obtained B.Ed. degree from an institution,
which was not recognised. He was appointed by the Management
Committee and filed a writ petition for his salary, his services were          C
terminated. He filed a writ petition, which was dismissed, against which
appeal was also dismissed. This Court in paragraph 21 made following
observations:-
      “21. It is not in dispute that the said institution was not recognised
      by any university. A degree is recognised only if it is granted by a     D
      university constituted in terms of the University Grants Commission
      Act, 1956 or under any State or parliamentary Act. No university
      can be established by a private management without any statutory
      backing.”
      24. This Court dismissed the appeal filed by the teachers. The           E
above case was also on different premise and does not help the
respondent No.4.
        25. Appellant has also placed reliance on judgment of this Court
in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and Ors., (2015)
15 SCC 602 where writ petion was filed challenging the dismissal order         F
after six year. The writ petitoin was allowed by the learned Single Judge
against which LPA by the State was also dismissed. This Court allowed
the appeal and held that delay in approaching High Court under Article
226 was fatal in the above case. In paragraphs 26 and 27 following was
laid down:-                                                                    G
      “26. In the case at hand, the employee was dismissed from service
      in the year 1999, but he chose not to avail any departmental
      remedy. He woke up from his slumber to knock at the doors of
      the High Court after a lapse of five years. The staleness of the
                                                                               H
798              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A            claim remained stale and it could not have been allowed to rise
             like a phoenix by the writ court.
             27. The grievance agitated by the respondent did not deserve to
             be addressed on merits, for doctrine of delay and laches had
             already visited his claim like the chill of death which does not
B            spare anyone even the one who fosters the idea and nurtures the
             attitude that he can sleep to avoid death and eventually proclaim
             “deo gratias”—”thanks to God”.”
            26. As observed above, the Act which Governs the appointment
      of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in the University itself provides a
C     mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to the
      Chancellor that too within a period of three months. Any challenge to
      appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained as we
      have already held that respondent No.4 in his representation before the
      Chancellor never challenged the appointment of appellant as Assistant
      Professor and had filed representation only claiming seniority over
D     appellant after he got promoted as Assistant Professor himself in the
      year 2007, High Court ought not to have entertained the challenge to the
      appointment of appellant in the writ petition and ought to have confined
      the consideration of claim of respondent No.4 for seniority over the
      appellant. When the appointment of appellant was not challenged in
E     reasonable time as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, it is not in the
      ends of justice to permit the respondent No.4 to challenge such
      appointment in the High Court in the writ petition for the first time, after
      more than four years of the appointment.
             27. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that High Court
F     committed an error in quashing the appointment of respondent No.4 as
      Assistant Professor, quashing the order of the Chancellor as well as
      direction to treat the appellant as being appointed as a Lecturer. There
      was no error in the order of the Chancellor rejecting the representation
      made by the respondent No.4, which representation was referable to
      Section 53 of Act No. 8 of 2002. High Court committed error in quashing
G     the order as well as issuing directions as noted above.
            28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow the appeals
      and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 12.04.2018 and
      dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent No.4.

H     Devika Gujral                                                 Appeals allowed