Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4412 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27082 of 2012)

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

Versus

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

Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4413 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28373 of 2012)

Pramodini Ambadas Lad …Appellant

Versus

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

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4414 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28399 of 2012)

Parikshit Vinayak Shingrup & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

1

Page 2 Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth

& Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4415 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.28437 of 2012)

Prashant Dinkarrao Peshattiwar & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

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

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.These appeals arise out of a common Judgment and

Order dated 16

th

August, 2012 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench whereby writ petitions

No.238, 247, 251 and 389 of 2012 filed by the appellants,

herein, have been dismissed and the orders passed by the

respondents terminating their services affirmed.

3.Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth invited

applications for appointment against 24 vacancies in the

cadre of Senior Research Assistants and 37 vacancies in the

cadre of Junior Research Assistants. As many as 3214

2

Page 3 applications were received from eligible candidates against

61 posts so advertised. Appointments based on the selection

conducted by the Selection Committee concerned were all

the same made for as many as 131 posts out of which 76

appointments were made against the posts of Senior

Research Assistant while the remaining 55 were made in the

cadre of Junior Research Assistants. It is common ground

that the selection process was based on a total weightage of

100 marks for each candidate out of which 40 marks were

reserved for educational qualification of the candidate and

his/her experience while the remaining 60 marks were set

apart for viva-voce examination.

4.Several complaints appear to have been made against

the selection process and the resultant appointments made

by the University. Some of these complaints were in the

form of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay

at Nagpur while some others were addressed to His

Excellency, the Governor of Maharashtra who happens to be

the Chancellor of the University. Out of the writ petitions

filed against the selection and appointment process, Writ

3

Page 4 Petition No.4771 of 2006 inter alia prayed for a direction to

the Chancellor to institute an inquiry under Section 11 of the

Maharashtra Agriculture Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act,

1983 in regard to the illegalities and irregularities committed

in the selection and consequent appointments against the

vacancies referred to above. By an Order dated 21

st

April,

2007 passed by the High Court in the said petition, the

Chancellor was directed to take a decision in the matter on

or before the 14

th

August, 2007. Two other writ petitions

were similarly filed before the High Court of Nagpur

challenging the selection and appointment process. In writ

petition No.342 of 2006 filed by Shri H.S. Bache, the High

Court passed an interim order to the effect that the selection

of the candidates shall remain stayed subject to the further

orders of the Court. Writ Petition No.905 of 2006 filed by

Archana Bipte and another also assailed the validity of the

selection and appointment process undertaken by the

University on several grounds.

5.It was in the above backdrop that the Chancellor

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

4

Page 5 Agricultural Universities Act, 1983 and appointed Mr. Justice

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

examine the papers relating to the selection and

appointment of the candidates concerned against the posts

referred to above and to submit a report to the Chancellor as

to the fairness of the selection of the candidates appointed

by the University. A reading of the order passed by the

Chancellor would show that apart from several allegations

made by Dr. B.G. Bhathakal, Ex-Vice Chancellor of the

University and four others, the Chancellor had before him, a

report dated 8

th

November, 2006 submitted by the Director

General MCAER Pune from which the Chancellor noticed

several irregularities allegedly committed in the process of

selection such as violation of Statute 52, holding of common

interviews for both Senior and Junior Research Assistants,

appointing meritorious candidates from the reserved

category seats instead of appointing them in the open merit

category, selection of as many as 22 relatives of

officers/employees of the University, absence of any short-

listing of candidates for purposes of interview even when the

applications were far in excess of the advertised vacancies.

5

Page 6 There were also allegations of the selection process not being

transparent apart from allegations to the effect that the

norms for academic evaluation and viva voce examination

had been flouted.

6.With the constitution of the Justice Dhabe’s Committee

writ petition No.4771 of 2006 titled Dr.Balwant and Anr.

versus His Excellency the Chancellor of Dr.Punjabrao

Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeet & Ors. and writ Petition No.905

of 2006 titled Ms. Archana and Anr. V. State and Ors. were

both disposed of with the observation that Justice Dhabe

Committee was constituted to examine the complaints made

by the writ petitioners and connected issues was expected to

submit its report to the Chancellor making it unnecessary for

the Court to undertake any such exercise in the said

petitions.

7.Proceedings before Justice Dhabe Committee started

with the issue of notices to those appointed informing them

about the establishment of the Committee to inquire into the

fairness of the selection process and calling upon them to

appear in person before the Committee and to file affidavits

6

Page 7 and documents, if any, to justify their selection and

appointment. It is not in dispute that the appellants received

the said notices and acknowledged the same by filing their

respective affidavits. The appellants were in the meantime

informed by the University that they had completed their

period of probation satisfactorily but the declaration to that

effect was to remain subject to the outcome of writ petitions

No.342 of 2006 and 4771 of 2006.

8.Justice Dhabe Committee took nearly 3½ years to

complete the inquiry and to submit its report to the

Chancellor in which the entire process of selection and

appointment came under severe criticism questioning the

fairness of the selection process and the resultant

appointments. The High Court has summed up the substance

of the findings and conclusions arrived at by Justice Dhabe in

the following words:

1)As large numbers of candidates were called for

interview, without following proper ratio as

prescribed by the State government, it has led to

selection of undeserving and less meritorious

candidates by manipulation, favouritism and other

malpractices etc.

7

Page 8 2)Although the posts of SRA and JRA belonged to two

separate cadres with different pay scales, different

qualifications and duties and responsibilities, the

Selection Committee held common interviews for the

said posts and vitiated the selection of the

candidates as their suitability could not have been

properly judged in such interviews for the said posts.

3)The criteria for assessment of the candidates for the

posts of SRA/JRA were illegal.

4)The Selection Committee has awarded marks for

Ph.D. Thesis submitted, research papers/popular

articles published and significant contribution made

after the last date of application i.e. 15.09.2004 by

resorting to illegal marking system.

5)The Selection Committee gave higher weightage to

the performance in interview as compared to

academic performance.

6)The procedure followed by the Selection Committee

for awarding marks to the candidates for academic

performance and performance in interview was illegal

and invalid.

7) There was tinkering in mark seats of the candidates.

In some of the cases the mark sheets were not

prepared in the meeting of the Selection Committee

and they were also not placed before any of its

meeting for its consideration and approval.

8)The Chairman and the Member Secretary of the

Selection Committee on their own without any

authority or power in them increased the number of

posts of SRA and JRA to be filled in.

9)Category wise distribution of 55 posts of SRA and 76

posts of JRA was not made according to the

prescribed percentage for each of the backward

classes and open category as per the relevant GRs.

10)The selection lists for the posts of SRA and JRA

were not prepared or considered and approved in the

8

Page 9 meeting of the Selection Committee. There were

lacunae, deficiencies, illegalities and irregularities in

preparation of the selection list.

11)Though in the advertisement it was specifically

provided for wait lists to be prepared for the near

future vacancies, no wait lists were prepared by the

Selection Committee.

12)The Selection Committee did not discharge any of

its duties and responsibilities in the selection

process.

13)The entire selection process and selection of

candidates pursuant thereto for the posts of SRA and

JRA is vitiated by bias of Dr. V.D. Patil, Chairman of

the Selection Committee.

14)As per the findings of Justice Dhabe, favouritism

has occurred in the process of selection to the posts

of SRA and JRA

15)The qualification of Bachelor’s degree in

Agriculture Engineering was introduced as an

additional qualification for the post of JRA as per the

addendum dated 06.09.2004 to the advertisement

dated 14.08.2004 in which the posts of JRA were

advertised with the qualification of Bachelor’s degree

in Agriculture.

16)Preparation of the minutes of various meetings of

the Selection Committee were not recorded faithfully

and confirmed by its other members. The

proceedings/minutes of the meetings of the Selection

Committee were probably prepared after the

appointment orders were issued on 16.09.2005 and

17.09.2005.

17)There were more than 2 months delay in handing

over the Selection lists to the then Vice Chancellor.

The reasons given by the then Vice Chancellor for

the delay in not receiving the selection lists towards

the end of June or July 2005 are not convincing.

9

Page 10 18)The Reservation policy of the Government was not

followed by the University. Reservations of the posts

for backward classes (social/ vertical reservation)

were not made according to their prescribed

percentage as per the relevant GRs. of the State

Government.

19)The graduates of the Yashwantrao Chavan

Maharashtra Open University were not considered in

the University for appointment and promotion in the

post of JRA.

20)There were illegalities, flaws and consequential

reshuffling of the Selection Lists and other infirmities

in preparation of the existing selection lists of these

posts of SRA and JRA. Thus, the appointments made

in the posts of SRA and JRA are highly irregular.

21)The routine procedures for making appointment in

the university was not followed in the appointments

made to the posts of SRA and JRA. In the report it is

concluded that the entire selection process and

selection of the candidates to the posts of SRA and

JRA is vitiated by the illegalities, irregularities and

improprieties and therefore the appointments made

pursuant thereto, need to be set aside.

9.On receipt of the report from Justice Dhabe Committee

the Chancellor directed the Vice Chancellor of the University

to place the matter before the Executive Council for its

opinion. The matter was accordingly placed before the

Executive Council of the University on 14

th

February 2011.

The Council while accepting the findings recorded by the

Dhabe Committee recommended that a lenient view be taken

10

Page 11 by the Chancellor and the appointments already made

protected having regard to the fact that those appointed had

already served the University for over six years during the

interregnum. The petitioners also appear to have made a

representation to the Chancellor in which they once again

asserted that their appointments had been properly made on

the basis of their merit and that the termination of their

services after more than six years will be grossly unfair. The

Chancellor, however, felt that Justice Dhabe Committee had

reported illegalities and irregularities in the procedure

adopted by the Selection Committee which findings having

been accepted by the Executive Council left no room for any

leniency in the case, considering the gravity and seriousness

of the matter. The Chancellor found that the entire process

of selection of candidates and their appointments stood

vitiated because of such irregularities. Directions were

accordingly issued to the Vice Chancellor to initiate action to

cancel the appointments of the candidates concerned after

following the procedure prescribed by law and to fix the

responsibility of those who had committed lapses in the

matter of selection of the candidates and take disciplinary

11

Page 12 action against them including the Chairman of the Selection

Committee and the then Registrar and Member Secretary of

the said Committee. The Chancellor further directed the Vice

Chancellor to consider the suggestions made by Justice

Dhabe Committee in order to avoid recurrence of such

illegalities and irregularities in future recruitments.

10.In obedience to the directions issued by the Chancellor,

disciplinary action appears to have been initiated against

those comprising the Selection Committee in which the

officials are accused of having made illegal selection of 131

candidates including the petitioners thereby not only causing

financial loss to the University but also bringing disrepute to

it. We are in the present appeals not concerned with the

fate of the said proceedings which appear to be lingering on

even at present. As regards the petitioners, they were

served notices calling upon them to appear before the Vice

Chancellor for a personal hearing against their selection and

appointment as SRAs/JRAs in the University. It is not in

dispute that the petitioners in reply to the said notices filed

their respective responses before the Vice Chancellor and

12

Page 13 were heard on different dates mentioned in the

communications received by them. It is also not in dispute

that the petitioners submitted their representations before

the Vice Chancellor in writing in which they stated that their

appointments were regular and legally sound apart from

relying upon the fact that they had served the University for

nearly six years thereby entitling them to protection against

ouster on equitable grounds. The Vice Chancellor then

reported the result of the hearing provided by him to the

petitioners by his letter dated 1

st

November 2011.

Consideration of the report received from the Vice

Chancellor, the opinion offered by the Executive Council of

the University and the entire material including the report

submitted by Justice Dhabe Committee led the Chancellor to

pass an order on 16

th

December 2011 in which the

Chancellor held that the entire process of selection and

appointment having lost its sanctity on account of

irregularities in the same could not be approved or rectified.

The Chancellor felt that a lenient view on humanitarian

grounds alone would be against the principles of governance

and fair selection process in the matter of recruitment. He

13

Page 14 accordingly turned down the recommendation of the Vice

Chancellor that out of 83 SRAs and JRAs, selection of 65

candidates could be saved as valid while remaining 18 could

be ousted. He directed that Justice Dhabe Committee Report

did not leave any room for the Vice Chancellor to strike a

discordant note or sit in judgment over the conclusions

drawn by the Committee. The Chancellor accordingly

cancelled the appointments of 83 candidates of SRAs and

JRAs who had been selected and taken into the service of the

University on the basis of a process which the Chancellor

found was vitiated and void ab initio.

11.In compliance with the directions issued by the

Chancellor the Vice Chancellor issued individual orders in

each case terminating the services of the appointees

concerned. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners filed

Writ Petition Nos. 238/12, 389/12, 247/12 and 251/12

before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur

Bench which petitions have now been dismissed by the said

Court in terms of the common order impugned in these

appeals.

14

Page 15 12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length. The following questions arise for our consideration:

1)Was the Chancellor competent to appoint a Single

Member Committee headed by Justice H.W. Dhabe to

examine the illegalities, irregularities, fairness and

impropriety of the selection process and consequent

appointments to the cadre of SRAs and JRAs?

2)Were the inquiry proceedings entrusted to Justice

Dhabe Committee conducted in accordance with the

principles of natural justice?

3)Were the findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee

in any manner illegal or perverse to warrant

interference with the same by a Writ Court?

4)Was the procedure adopted by the University and the

Vice Chancellor fair and reasonable and in consonance

with the principles of natural justice?

5)Was the Chancellor of the respondent-University and

the High Court justified in declining the prayer of the

petitioners for continuance in service on account of the

15

Page 16 time lag between the date of their appointments and

the date on which their services were terminated?

We shall deal with the question ad seriatim.

Reg. Question No. 1

13.Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi

Vidyapeeths) Act, 1983 was enacted to consolidate and

amend the law relating to the agricultural universities in the

State of Maharashtra. The legislation provides for better

governance, more efficient administration and financial

control of the Universities and for better organisation of

teaching, research and extension education therein apart

from providing better facilities in agricultural and allied

matters in particular for the development of agricultural

sciences which is one of the prime objects underlying the

Act. Chapter II of the Act comprises Sections 3 to 11.

Section 4 of the Act states that each University shall be

deemed to be established and incorporated for the purposes

enumerated therein. The purposes mentioned in the said

provision includes education in agriculture in allied sciences

16

Page 17 and in humanities besides furthering the advancement of

learning and research in agriculture, undertaking and guiding

extension education programmes; integrating and

coordinating the teaching of subjects in the different

faculties, coordinating agricultural education, research and

extension education activities, teaching and examining

students and conferring degrees and diplomas. Section 6 of

the Act deals with the powers and functions of the

Universities. It inter alia provides that each University shall

have the powers and functions enumerated under the said

provision, in particular the power to institute teaching,

research and extension education posts required by the

University and to appoint persons to such posts. Sub-section

(x) to Section 6 is in this regard relevant which reads:

“to institute teaching, research and extension

education posts required by the University and to

appoint persons to such posts.”

14.Section 11 of the Act empowers the Chancellor to cause

an inspection and inquiry on matters stipulated therein. We

may gainfully extract the said provision in extenso as the

power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry into the validity

17

Page 18 of the selection and appointments has been questioned

before us in these appeals. Section 11 reads as under:

“SECTION 11: Chancellor to cause inspection and

inquiry on various matters:

(1)The Chancellor shall have the right to cause an

inspection to be made, by such person or per-

sons or body of persons, as he may direct, of

any University,, its buildings, farms, laborato-

ries, libraries, museums, workshops and

equipments of any college, institution or hostel

maintained, administered or recognised by the

University and of the teaching and other work

conducted by or on behalf of the University or

under its auspices of and of the conduct of ex-

aminations or other functions of the Univer -

sity, and to cause to inquiry to be made in like

manner regarding any matter connected with

the administration or finances of the Univer-

sity.

(2)The Chancellor shall, in every case, give due

notice to the University of his intention to cause

an inspection or inquiry to be made, and the

University shall be entitled to appoint a repre-

sentative, who all have the right to be present

and to be heard at the inspection or inquiry.

(3) After an inspection or inquiry has been caused to

be made, the Chancellor may address the Vice-

Chancellor on the result of such inspection or in-

quiry and the Vice-Chancellor shall; communi -

cate to the Executive Council the views of the

Chancellor and call upon the Executive Council to

communicate to the Chancellor through him its

opinion thereon within such time as may have

been specified by the Chancellor. If the Execu-

tive Council communicates, its opinion within the

specified time limit, after taking into considera-

tion that opinion, or where the Executive Council

fails to communicate its opinion in time, after

the specified time limit is over, the Chancellor

may proceed and advise the Executive Council

18

Page 19 upon the action to be taken by it, and fix a time

limit for taking such action

(4) The Executive Council shall, within the time limit

so fixed, report to the Chancellor through the

Vice-Chancellor the action which has been taken

or is proposed to be taken on the advice ten -

dered by him.

(5) The Chancellor may, where action has not been

taken by the Executive Council to his satisfac-

tion with in the time limit fixed, and after con-

sidering any explanation furnished or represen-

tation made by the Executive Council, issue

such direction, as the Chancellor may think fit,

and the Executive Council and other authority

concerned shall comply with such directions.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the pre -

ceding sub-section if at any time the Chancellor

is of the opinion that in any matter the affairs of

the University are not managed in furtherance

of the objects of the University or in accordance

with the provisions of this Act and the statutes

and Regulation or that special measures are de-

sirable to maintain the standards of University

teaching, examinations, research, extension ed-

ucation, administration or finances, the Chan-

cellor may indicate to the Executive Council

through the Vice-Chancellor any matter in re -

gard to which he desires an explanation and call

upon the Executive Council to offer such expla-

nation within such time as may be specified by

him. If the Executive Council fails to offer any

explanation within the time specified or offers

an explanation which, in the opinion of the

Chancellor is not satisfactory , the Chancellor

may issue such directions as appear to him to

be necessary , and the Executive Council and

other authority concerned shall comply with

such directions.

(7) The Executive Council shall furnish such informa-

tion relating to the administration and finances

of the University as the Chancellor may from

time to time require.

(8) The Executive Council shall furnish to the State

Government such returns or other information

19

Page 20 with respect to the property or activities of the

University as the State government may from

time to time require“.

(emphasis supplied)

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

of doubt that the Chancellor is vested with the power to

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

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

laboratories, libraries etc. or of hostels administered and

recognised by the University or of the teaching or other

workshops conducted on behalf of the University or any

conduct of examinations or other functions of the University.

The inspection so directed is, however, distinct from the

inquiry which the Chancellor may direct regarding any matter

connected with the administration or finance of the

University. The expression ‘administration or finance’ of the

University are in our opinion, wide enough to include an

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

If creation of teaching, research and education posts

required by the University is one of the functions of the

University and if appointment of suitable persons against

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

20

Page 21 why the power of the Chancellor to direct an inquiry under

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

such appointments. The term ‘administration of the

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

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

functions of the University, under Section 6. Selection of

persons suitable for appointment and appointments of such

persons would logically fall within the expression

“administration of the University” within the meaning of

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

in holding that the inquiry directed by the Chancellor into the

illegalities and irregularities of the selection process

culminating in the appointment of Senior and Junior

Research Assistants was legally permissible. The power

vested in the Chancellor under Section 11 to direct an

inspection or an inquiry into matters referred to in the said

provision is very broad and vests the Chancellor with the

authority to direct an inspection or an inquiry whenever

warranted in the facts and circumstances in a given case.

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

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

21

Page 22 Universities who shall, when present, preside at any

convocation of the University. Section 15 reads:

“(1) The Governor of Maharashtra, shall be the

Chancellor of each of the Universities.

(2) The Chancellor shall, by virtue of his office, be

the head of the University and shall, when present,

preside at any convocation of the University.

(3) The Chancellor may call for his information any

papers relating to the administration of the affairs of

the University and such requisition shall be complied

with by the University.

(4) Every proposal to confer any honorary degree

shall be subject to confirmation by the Chancellor.

(5)The Chancellor may, by order in writing, annul

any proceeding of any officer or authority of the Uni-

versity, which is not in conformity with this Act, the

Statutes or the Regulations, or which is prejudicial

to the interest of the University;

Provided that, before making any such order, he

shall call upon the officer or authority to show cause

why such an order should not be made, and if any

cause is shown within the time specified by him in

this behalf, he shall consider the same.

(6) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers

and perform such other duties as are laid down by

this Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

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

being the ex officio Head of the University, the statute

specifically confers upon the Chancellor the power to call for

his information any paper relating to the administration of

the affairs of the University and upon such request the

22

Page 23 University is bound to comply with the same. Sub-section 5

vests the chancellor with the power to annul any proceeding

of any officer or authority if the same is not in conformity

with the provisions of the Act, the statutes or the Regulations

or which is prejudicial to the interest of the University. A

conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 15, in our opinion, leaves

no manner of doubt that the Chancellor exercises ample

powers in regard to the affairs of the University and in

particular in regard to the affairs of the administration of the

University. The power to direct an inquiry into any matter

concerning the administration of the University is only one of

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

any such power is not subject to any limitation or

impediment understandably because the power is vested in a

high constitutional functionary who is expected to exercise

the same only when such exercise becomes necessary to

correct aberrations and streamline administration so as to

maintain the purity of the procedures and process

undertaken by the University in all spheres dealt with by it.

The power to direct an inquiry is meant to kickstart

corrective and remedial measures and steps needed to

23

Page 24 improve the functioning of the University as much as to

correct any illegal or improper activity in the smooth running

of the administration of the University. As a father figure

holding a high constitutional office, the Chancellor is to be

the guiding spirit for the Universities to follow a path of

rectitude in every matter whether it concerns the

administration or the finances of the University or touches

the teaching and other activities that are undertaken by it.

The legislature, it is obvious, has considered the conferment

of such powers to be essential to prevent indiscipline, root

out corruption, prevent chaos or deadlock in the

administration of the University or any office or

establishment under it that may tend to shake its credibility

among those who deal with the institution.

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

inquiry into the illegalities and irregularities in the selection

and appointment process in the light of widespread

resentment against the same as is evident from the fact that

three writ petitions had been filed in the High Court

challenging the selection and the appointment process. Two

24

Page 25 of the writ petitions had been disposed of as noticed earlier

no sooner Justice Dhabe Committee was constituted by the

Chancellor for holding a detailed inquiry into the allegations.

The petitioners were not only aware of the fact about the

pending writ proceedings but also about the constitution of

Justice Dhabe Committee. As a matter of fact with the

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

the petitioner had known that Justice Dhabe Committee will

eventually determine whether or not their selection and

appointment was proper. Justice Dhabe Committee had even

issued notices to the petitioners who had in turn responded

to the same. The constitution of Justice Dhabe Committee

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

the contrary the petitioners merrily participated in the

proceedings and took a chance to obtain a favourable verdict

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

challenge not only the findings recorded by the Committee

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

Committee. While the findings recorded by the Inquiry

Committee could be assailed, the challenge to the setting up

of the Committee was clearly untenable not only because

25

Page 26 there was no merit in that contention but also because

having taken a chance to obtain a favourable verdict the

petitioners could not turn around to assail the constitution of

the Committee itself. Question 1 is accordingly answered in

the negative.

Reg. Question No. 2

18.The petitioners had unsuccessfully challenged Justice

Dhabe Committee Report before the High Court on the

ground that principles of natural justice had not been

complied with by the Committee. The High Court has noted

and in our opinion rightly so that Justice Dhabe Committee

had issued notices to each one of the petitioners asking for

their explanation which the petitioners had submitted. The

High Court noted that the inquiry proceedings before Justice

Dhabe had continued for nearly three years during which

period the petitioners had made no grievance either before

the Committee or before any other forum regarding non-

compliance with the principles of natural justice. There is

nothing on record to suggest that any point relevant to the

controversy was not considered by Justice Dhabe Committee

26

Page 27 or that there was any impediment in their offering an

effective defence before the Committee. The petitioners had

on the contrary candidly admitted in the writ petition itself

that upon receipt of notices from the Committee they had

appeared and filed their respective affidavits before the

Committee. Some of the petitioners had even furnished

some additional information which was summoned from

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

petitioners with the proceedings by inviting them to appear

and participate in the same, heard the petitioners and

considered their version. There is neither an allegation nor

any material to suggest that there was any reluctance or

refusal on the part of the Committee to entertain any

material which the petitioner intended to place in their

defence or to summon any record from any other quarter

relevant to the questions being examined by the Committee.

The argument that the petitioners did not know as to what

the complaint against them was has been rejected by the

High Court and quite rightly so. Once the petitioners were

informed about the setting up of the Committee and invited

to participate in the same and once they had appeared

27

Page 28 before the Committee and filed their affidavits it is difficult to

appreciate the argument that the petitioners did so without

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

the inquiry all about. Assuming that any of the petitioners

did not fully comprehend the nature of allegations being

inquired into by the Committee or the purpose of the inquiry

nothing prevented the petitioners from taking suitable steps

at the appropriate stage assuming that they were so naïve as

to simply appear before the Committee without being aware

of the purpose for which they were invited. They could

indeed approach the Committee to secure the relevant

information to fully acquaint themselves about the on-going

process and the nature of the defences that was open to

them. Having remained content with their participation in

the inquiry proceedings for nearly three years and having

made no grievance at all against the procedure adopted by

the Committee in dealing with the subject till the writ

petitions challenging the termination orders were filed, we

see no merit in the specious contention that principles of

natural justice were violated by the Committee especially

when no prejudice is demonstrably caused to the petitioners

28

Page 29 on account of the procedure which the Committee followed in

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

that view answered in the negative.

Reg. Question No. 3

19.Findings recorded by Justice Dhabe Committee were

based on facts discovered in the course of the inquiry. No

serious attempt was made before the High Court nor even

before us to challenge the said findings of fact. Even

otherwise a finding inquiry instituted by the Chancellor was

bound to involve appraisal of evidence, documentary and

oral. The conclusions drawn on the basis of such appraisal

were open to critical evaluation by the authorities before

whom the conclusions and the Report was submitted for

action but once such conclusions are upon a careful re-

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

in interfering with the same.

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

Justice Dhabe Committee the matter was directed to be

placed before the Executive Council of the University. That

direction was meant to give the Executive Council an

29

Page 30 opportunity to examine the findings of fact and the

conclusions drawn from the same critically and to determine

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

common ground, had without any reservation approved the

findings recorded by Dhabe Committee, no matter with a

recommendation to the Chancellor to take a lenient view in

the matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioners had

already served the University for nearly six years. The

recommendation of the Executive Council did not, however,

find anything amiss with the conclusions drawn by the Dhabe

Committee as to the irregularities in the selection process

culminating in illegal appointments of the selected

candidates. The ‘fact finding’ aspect thus stood concluded

with the approval of the Executive Council of the University.

The Vice Chancellor no doubt made an attempt at

segregating what according to him was the valid part of the

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

approve of that exercise. The Chancellor took the view that

the entire selection stood vitiated by widespread

irregularities, leaving hardly any room for a distinction

between the so called valid and invalid parts of the selection

30

Page 31 process. Be that as it may the fact remains that we have not

been able to find any reason to interfere with the findings

recorded by the Justice Dhabe Committee. The sanctity of

the entire selection process having been vitiated by

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

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

Reg. Question No. 4

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

orders passed by the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor of the

University had issued notices to the petitioners calling upon

them to appear before him for a personal hearing in support

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

not in dispute that upon receipt of the said notices the

petitioners had filed their responses in the required format

and were also given an opportunity of being heard by the

Vice Chancellor. In the course of the hearing the petitioners

obviously relied upon the written responses and sought a

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

merit in the submission that upon submission of the

recommendations by Justice Dhabe Committee the

31

Page 32 petitioners did not have any opportunity to present their

version before the Vice Chancellor nor is it possible to dub

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

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

contention urged before it and correctly concluded that the

petitioners had failed to establish that the Vice Chancellor

had either violated the principles of natural justice or that

any prejudice was caused by the procedure adopted by him

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

Chancellor had in his anxiety to help the petitioners tried to

sit in judgment over the findings and conclusions of the

inquiry Committee and taken a stance that was overtly

sympathetic towards the petitioners. The uncharitable

expression used by the petitioners as to the nature of the

process undertaken by the Vice Chancellor is not, therefore,

justified. The Vice Chancellor had in our view acted fairly

and fully complied with the principle of natural justice. There

is no gainsaid that the requirements of audi alteram partem

are not capable of a strait jacket application. Their

application depends so much upon the nature of the Tribunal

that is deciding the matter, the nature of the inquiry that is

32

Page 33 being made and the consequences flowing from the

determination. A notice to the petitioners who were likely to

be affected and a hearing afforded to them apart from

written responses filed in reply to the notices was in our

opinion a substantial compliance with the principles of natural

justice. No further hearing was required to be repeated by

the Chancellor who had before whom the recommendations

of the Executive Committee and the Vice Chancellor who

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

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

observed:

“Thus, the Chancellor was not required to give any

personal hearing to the petitioners while disagreeing

with them. If we hold that prior to passing of the

final order the Chancellor was required to hear the

petitioners once again, that would mean that

although the facts are undisputed and although no

prejudice is demonstrated, we agree with the

submissions of the petitioners. This would mean

second round or second opportunity being made

available to the petitioners to show cause against

the findings and conclusions in the Inquiry

Committee’s report. That would mean reopening of

the matter in its entirety which was not permissible

and feasible in the peculiar facts of the case. This

could be equated with an opportunity to show cause

against the proposed punishment as is available in

service jurisprudence. Those principles cannot be

imported into the exercise that has been undertaken

in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

33

Page 34 22.We see no error of law in the view taken by the High

Court to warrant our interference. Question No. 4 is

accordingly answered in the negative.

Reg. Question No. 5

23.The Chancellor declined to show any leniency to the

petitioners no matter they had served the University for over

six years primarily because the entire selection process was

in his opinion vitiated by widespread irregularities in the

selection process. The findings recorded by Justice Dhabe

Committee upon a detailed and thorough examination of the

matter fully supported that view of the Chancellor. The

reasons that prevailed with the Chancellor cannot be said to

be illusory or irrelevant so as to call for interference from a

writ Court. The Chancellor was dealing with a case where

the Selection Committee had called a large number of

candidates for interview without following the proper

procedure as prescribed by the State Government leading to

the appointment of undeserving candidates by manipulation

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

although carrying different pay scales were clubbed for

34

Page 35 holding a common interview. Even the criterion for

assessment of the merit of the candidates was found to be

faulty. Marks were awarded for qualifications although the

thesis for such qualifications was submitted after the date

prescribed for such advertisement. Marking system itself

was found to be erroneous. Higher weightage was given to

the performance in the interview as compared to academic

merit. There was tinkering in the mark sheets of the

candidates in certain cases and mark sheets were not made

available in the meetings of the Selection Committee. The

Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Selection

Committee had on their own increased the number of posts

of SRAs and JRAs to be filled upon. All these among other

aspects were considered by Justice Dhabe Committee in its

report which concluded that the entire selection process was

vitiated. That beneficiaries of such faulty selection process

should hold on to the benefit only because of lapse of time

would be travesty of justice especially when deserving

candidates were left out with a brooding sense of injustice

and cynicism against the efficacy of the system that was

meant to act fairly and objectively. Continuance in office of

35

Page 36 those selected by means that are not fair, transparent and

reasonable will amount to perpetuating the wrong. The

length of service put in by the candidates who were selected

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

the considerations that enters the mind of the Court but

there are other weighty considerations that cannot be given

a go bye or conveniently forgotten lest those who do not

adopt such malpractices or those who expect the system to

protect their interest and their rights are eternally

disappointed and left to believe that a wrong once done will

never be corrected just because the legal process by which it

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

takes years to reach fruition.

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

which the petitioners have urged in support of their

continuance in service is that they have become overage for

any government employment at this stage. If ousted from

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

opportunity to compete for the vacancies against which they

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

36

Page 37 be considered especially when there is no allegation leave

alone evidence about any bribery having taken place in the

issue of appointment orders by the officials concerned. Even

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

opinion, be justified having regard to the background in

which the selection and appointments were made and

eventually set aside by the University. All that the long years

of service rendered with the University may secure for the

petitioners a direction to the effect that in any future

selection against the vacancies caused by their ouster and

other vacancies that may be available for the next selection

the petitioners shall also be considered in relaxation of the

upper age limit prescribed for them. Such of the petitioners

who could try their luck in the next selection and who

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

service.

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

followed falling up the vacancies that will be caused by the

ouster of the petitioners. An affidavit has in that regard

been filed by the Shri Dnyaneshwar Ashru Bharati, Registrar

37

Page 38 of the respondent-University stating that in terms of

Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2013 the Maharashtra State

legislature has amended Maharashtra Agricultural

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

the principal Act as substituted by Act XXXII aforementioned

provides that no person shall be appointed by the University

as a member of the academic staff, except on the

recommendation of a Selection Board constituted for the

purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes

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

classified as academic as per Statute 71 of the MAU statutes

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

is now underway. The affidavit further states that the

University will not be in a position to undertake the selection

process of posts advertised on 23

rd

March 2012 and that

selection will be done by Recruitment Board as per the new

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

the procedure that shall be followed by the Selection Board

constituted for the purpose. Be that as it may the

establishment of a Selection Board and formulation of proper

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

38

Page 39 making the process of selection and recruitment objective,

fair and reasonable apart from bringing transparency to the

norms and the process by which such recruitments were

made. We only hope that the process of amendment of

relevant statute is expedited by the University and concluded

as far as possible within six months from today and process

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

petitioners and those that were advertised in terms of

advertisement dated 23

rd

March 2012 undertaken in

accordance with such procedure.

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

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

however direct that the University-respondent shall take

necessary steps for constituting the Selection Board in terms

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

XXXII of 2013 and advertise the vacancies currently

available, together with the posts that are presently held by

the appellants for recruitment in accordance with the

procedure that may be prescribed in accordance with law.

The entire process shall be completed by the University

39

Page 40 within six months. The appellants shall also be allowed to

apply and participate in the selection process against the

vacancies so advertised in relaxation of the upper age limit

prescribed for such recruitment. For a period of six months

or till the process of selection and appointment based on the

selection process is completed by the respondent, whichever

is earlier, the appellants shall be allowed to continue in

service on the same terms as are currently applicable to

them. In case any one of the appellants is selected by the

new selection process, he shall be granted benefit of

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

compete for the selection or are not selected for the posts

that may be advertised shall stand ousted from service on

completion of the period of six months hereby granted. No

costs.

…………..…………………..…..…J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

…………..…………………..…..…J.

(C NAGAPPAN)

New Delhi

April 4, 2014

40