ivil Appeal Nos
4094  4095 of 1991
418 From the Judgment and Order dated 631991 of the Rajas than High Court in DB Civil Special Appeal Writ Nos
48  50 of 1990
PP Rao MK Ramamurthi SK Singh Sudhanshu Atreya Sushil Kumar Jain Ms Bina Gupta Manoj Swarup Miss Lalita Kohli RF Nariman and Mrs Binu Tamta for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL J
Special Leaves granted
Briefly stated the facts are that University of Rajas than invited applications for the post of Professor in the department of Botany
The Selection Committee constituted under Sec
5 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Offi cers Selection for appointment Act of 1974 herein after referred to as the Act of 1974  held interviews on 20th June 1989 and selected Dr GS Nathawat for the post of Professor in Botany
The name of Dr Urea Kant was mentioned in the reserve list by the Selection Committee
The syndi cate of the University approved the list and appointed Dr Nathawat on the said post
Dr Nathawat retired on 30th September 1989 and Dr Urea Kant who was already selected and kept in the reserve list was appointed as Professor in the department of Botany
Dr Bhikalal Dr Shiv Sharma Dr Sudhakar Mishra and Dr TN Bhardwaj who were not selected filed a writ petition in the High Court initially challeng ing the appointment of Dr Nathawat on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with law and objection was also raised that once a selected person joins the post the reserve list exhausted itself
Dr Bhikalal and others subsequently impleaded Dr Uma Kant also as one of the respondents in the writ petition
The respondents in their reply to the writ petition submitted that the selection committee was properly constituted
The appointment of Dr Uma Kant was rightly made as the life of the reserve list was initially for six months and subse quently extended to one year by a resolution of the Syndi cate dated 3121983
Learned Single Judge held that the constitution of the Selection Committee was valid but as regards the appointment of Dr Urea Kant from the reserve list it was held that once a person selected by the Selec tion Committee had been appointed the reserve list stood exhausted and the person named in the reserve list could not be appointed against a future vacancy
The appointment of Dr Urea Kant was held illegal and it was directed that Dr Uma Kant be removed from the said post of Professor of Botany
Both Dr Uma Kant as well as the University of Rajasthan tiled special appeal beforehe Division Bench
The Division Bench of the High Court by a common order dated March 6 1991 upheld the order of 419 the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeals
The Division Bench after considering Sections 3 5 and 6 of the Act of 1974 held that the purpose of preparation of the reserve list seems to be that if the person selected at No 1 does not join then the next man in the reserve list should be appointed
But if the person selected by the Selection Committee is given appointment and he joins then selection made by the Committee is exhausted and the reserve list is of no avail and becomes extinct
It was also held that once a person selected by the Selection Committee has joined that post is filled and some vacancy is caused thereafter a fresh and de novo selection committee procedure has to be started because that will be a case of future vacancy aris ing after the post had been filled up on the recommendations of the Selection Committee
Aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court Dr Uma Kant as well as the University have come in appeal by grant of special leave
In order to appreciate the controversy we would advert to certain relevant provisions of the Act of 1974
Relevant provisions of Sections 3 5 and 6 are as follows LM15 Section 3 Restrictions on appointments of teachers and officers 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant law as from the commencement of this Act no teacher and no officer in any Univer sity in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted under Sec
2 Save as otherwise provided in sub section
3 every appointment of a teacher or of an offi cer in any University made in contravention of sub section
1 shall be null and void
Section 5 Constitution of Selection Committee 1 For every selection of a teacher or of an officer in a University there shall be con stituted a committee consisting of the follow ing i Vice Chancellor of the University con cerned who shall be the Chairman of the Committee ii an eminent educationist to be nominated by the Chancellor for a period of one year 420 iii an eminent educationist to be nominated by the State Government for a period of one year iv One member of the Syndicate to be nomi nated by the State Government for a period of one year and v such other persons as members specified in column 2 of the Schedule for the selection of the teachers and officers mentioned in column 1 thereof
Section 6 Procedure of Selection Committee 1 The quorum required for the meeting of a selection committee constituted under Section 5 shall not be less than five out of which at least two shall be the experts if the selec tion to be made is for the post of a lecturer or any other post of a teacher equivalent thereto
The quorum required for the meeting of a selection committee for the selection of non teaching posts shall be not less than one half of the number of members of the Selection Committee out of which at least one shall be an expert
2 The selection committee shall make its recommendations to the Syndicate if the Syndicate disapproves the recommendations of the selection committee the Vice Chancellor of the University concerned shall submit such recommendations alongwith reasons for disap proval given by the syndicate to the Chancel lor for his consideration and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final
3 Every selection committee shall be bound by the qualifications laid down in the rele vant law of the University concerned for the post of a teacher as the case may be of an officer
4 The Selection Committee while making its recommendations to the Syndicate under sub section 2 shall prepare a list of candidates selection by it in order of merit and shall further prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of 50 of the vacan cies in the post of teachers or officers for which the selection committee was constituted under sub section 1 of Section 5 and shall forward the main list and the reserve list alongwith its recommendations to the Syndi cate
421 Initially the reserve list was to remain valid upto six months from the date of approval of the Syndicate as per the resolution of the Syndicate dated 10th July 1978 and subse quently the Syndicate by its resolution passed in its spe cial meeting on 3121983 decided that the reserve list recommended by the Selection Committee for selection of employee be treated valid for one year instead of six months
According to the University this was done in order to curtail the ad hoc appointments and also because the regular selections take a lot of time
It may also be noted that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 10th July 1978 had resolved as under i Every Selection Committee may draw a Re serve List of suitable candidates upto a number not exceeding 50 of the number of post for which vacancies exist part vacancy be rounded or to the next whole number and place them in order of priority
The Reserve List of drawn be treated valid upto six months the date of approval by the Syndicate of the recommendations of the selec tion committees
On the vacancies caused within the cadre during six months of the approval of the recommendations the candidates found suitable and placed in the reserve list be appointed in the order of priority given by the Selection Committee
As already mentioned above the period of  six months was subsequently extended to one year by resolution dated 3121983
The University has taken a categorical stand that since 1978 not only in the University of Rajasthan but all other universities in the State of Rajasthan reserve lists are prepared and appointments are being made from the re serve list against future vacancies arising on account of resignation retirement or promotion
A long list of ap pointments made from reserve list in various departments of the University of Rajasthan from time to time after joining of the persons from the main list from 1978 to 1990 have been furnished by the appellants before this court by an additional affidavit
It has also been stated that even out of the petitioners who had filed the writ petition Dr TN Bhardwaj himself was kept in the reserve list and was there after appointed on the post of reader having fallen vacant subsequently on account of the promotion of Dr P Khanna as Professor
Section 3 1 of the Act of 1974 puts a restriction that no teacher in any university in Rajasthan shall be appointed except on the recommenda 422 tions of the Selection Committee constituted under Sec
5 1 and under Sec
32 any appointment made in contraven tion of sub section 1 of sec
3 shall be null and void
In the present case Dr Uma Kant was recommended by the Selection Committee constituted under Section only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee
The High Court has found that there was no violation of Section 5 in the Constitution of the Selection Committee and the said finding has not been challenged before us on behalf of the respondents
Section 6 provides for the procedure of Selection Committee and sub section 4 of Section 6 clearly provides that the Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates selected by it in order of merit and shall further prepare reserve list in the same order and to the extent of 50 of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for which the Selection Committee was constituted
The Syndicate in its Resolution dated 10th July 1978 had resolved that the reserve list recommended by the Selection Committee shall be valid upto six months from the date of the approval of the Syndicate which was subsequently extend ed to one year instead of six months in a resolution passed on 3121983
In our view the High Court was wrong in taking the view that a regular vacancy of Professor having arisen on the retirement of Dr GS Nathawat on 30th September 1989 again a fresh Selection Committee should have been constituted and no appointment on such post could have been made from the reserve list prepared by the Selection Commit tee on 20th June 1989
Section 64 clearly provided for the preparation of reserve list to the extent of 50 of the vacancies in the post of teachers or officers for which the Selection Committee was constituted
It is not in dispute that the main list and the reserve list prepared by the Selection Committee on 20th June 1989 were approved by the Syndicate
We agree with the contention of the university that a reserve list is always prepared to meet the contin gency of anticipated or future vacancies caused on account of resignation retirement promotion or otherwise
This is done in view of the fact that it takes a long time in con stituting a fresh Selection Committee which has a cumbersome procedure and in order to avoid ad hoc appointments keeping in view the interest of the student community
The Selection Committee in the present case was constituted for the selec tion of Professor in Botany and such Selection Committee had approved and recommended the name of the appellant Dr Urea Kant in the reserve list finding him suitable for appoint ment on the post of Professor in Botany
The Syndicate which is the highest executive body in the university had also approved the name of Dr Uma Kant in the reserve list which remained valid upto one year and we cannot accept the con tention raised on behalf of the respondents that the reserve list is exhausted as soon as the person recommended in the main list joined the post
In the present case Dr GS Nathawat was selected on 423 20th June 1989 and was going to retire on 30th September 1989 and in these circumstances it was perfectly valid to select one more person and to keep him in the reserve list for being appointed on the regular vacancy which was shortly anticipated on account of retirement of Dr Nathawat
The High Court committed a clear error in restricting the scope of reserve list only against the post for which the selec tion was made and which according to the High Court could only be available to the incumbent in the reserve list if the person recommended in the main list did not join such post
Such interpretation is not borne out from any of the provisions of Section 31 Section 5 or sub section
4 of Section 6 of the Act of 1974
The High Court took the view that the expression appointment  in sub sec
1 of Sec
3 shall mean appointed initially
Then sub sec
1 of Sec
5 provides that for every selection of a teacher in universi ty there shall be constituted a Committee consisting of persons mentioned therein
The High Court held that the words for every selection are very pertinent and when read with Sec
31 and 32 it only means that whenever there is a regular vacancy for a post a Selection Committee has to be constituted
When Dr GS Nathawat retired on 30th September 1989 a regular vacancy arose and therefore a Selection Committee should have been constituted afresh
In our view the High Court was wrong in taking the aforesaid view
5 only provides for the constitution of Selection Committee and the words for every selection used in sub sec
1 of Sec 5 only mean that in case of every selection of a teacher or of an officer in university a Committee would be constituted of the persons mentioned in sub clause i to v of the said Section
So far as the present case is concerned even the High Court has arrived to the conclusion that the Committee constituted for the selection of a professor in Botany was proper and in accord ance with the provisions of Sec 5 of the Act of 1974
The appellant Dr Uma Kant was found suitable for the post of professor in Botany and his name was recommended in the reserve list by the duly constituted Selection Committee
64 of the Act of 1974 clearly provides that the Selection Committee while making its recommendations to the syndicate under sub sec
2 shall prepare a list of candi dates selected by it in order of merit and shall further prepare a reserve list in the same order and to the extent of 50 of the vacancies for the post of teachers or offi cers
Thus a reading of Sec 5 with Sec
64 makes it quite clear that the Selection Committee constituted shall recom mend not only the candidates selected by it in order of merit but shall further prepare a reserve list to the extent of 50 of the vacancies and persons kept in the reserve list will be considered as having been selected for the concerned post and shall be entitled for appointment if any 424 vacancy is caused during the validity period of the reserve list
The suitability of the persons kept in the reserve list is also adjudged by the Selection Committee which is constituted for selection of a teacher in the university
Thus no fault can be found that the incumbent recommended in the reserve list by the Selection Committee was not selected for the concerned post of teacher
In our view the very purpose of preparing a reserve list would be defeated if the view taken by the High Court is accepted that once a person selected by the selection committee has joined that post then selection made by the Committee is exhausted and the reserve list is of no avail and becomes extinct
There was no meaning or purpose of keeping the reserve list alive for a long period of one year as no person selected for the post can at all be expected not to join for such a long period of one year
If we examine the matter from another angle it would be clear that according to the university such a procedure is in vogue in all the universities of Rajasthan that a reserve list is used for the appointment on a vacant post caused during the validity period of the reserve list and numerous appointments had been made in the last decade from the reserve list
The university has also submitted that if the view taken by the High Court is held to be correct it will create chaotic situation in the university as all appoint ments so far made from the reserve list will become assail able
It is well settled that in matters relating to educa tional institutions if two interpretations are possible the courts would ordinarily be reluctant to accept that interpretation which would upset and reverse the long course of action and decision taken by such educational authorities and would accept the interpretation made by such educational authorities
In the result we allow these appeals set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court and hold the selection and appointment of the appellant Dr Urea Kant as valid on the post of Professor in Botany in the University of Rajas than
TNA Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant plaintiff rented out to the respondent defendant the suit premises allotted to him by sub lease by a Housing Co operative Society which itself held the flat under a 99 years lease granted by the Metropolitan Development Authority
Sometime later he issued a notice of termination of the tenancy to the respondent and called upon him to vacate the premises within a stipulated time
On respondent s failure to vacate the premises heinstituted a suit on grounds of default of payment of rent and reasonable requirement for occupation under Sections 131 i and 131ff respectively
The trial court decreed the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement but held that the respondent tenant was not in arrears of rent
On appeal by the respondent the first appellate court did not examine the merits of the appellant s claim of reasonable requirement but examined the appellant plain tiff s title though the respondent had not questioned the same and held that since the appellant was only a lessee under a 99 years lease granted by the Society which itself was a lessee holding a 99 years lease from the Metropolitan Development Authority he was not an owner  within the meaning of Section 13III of the Act and was therefore not entitled to seek eviction under that provision
The High Court also did not examine the appellant s claim for evic tion and affirmed the first appellate Court s finding on the question of title
Hence the appeal by the appellant plain tiff
On the question whether the appellant was the owner of the suit premises for the purpose of instituting a suit for eviction in terms of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956
246 Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 11 Ownership denotes the relation between a person and an object forming the subject matter of his ownership
It consists in a complex of rights all of which are right s in rem being good against all the world and not merely against specific persons
249 G Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th ed
Ch 8 p 246 et
referred to
12 There are various rights or incidents of ownership all of which need not necessarily be present in every case
They may include a right to possess use and enjoy the thing owned and a right may be indeterminate in duration and residuary in character
A person has a right to possess the thing which he owns even when he is not in possession but only retains a reversionary interest ie a right to repossess the thing on the termination of a certain period or on the happening of a certain event
249 G H 250 A 13 All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a better title than the defendant
He has no burden to show that he has the best of all possible titles
His ownership is good against all the world except the true owner
The rights of an owner are seldom absolute and often are in many respects controlled and regulated by statute
The question however is whether he has a superior right or interest vis a vis the person challenging it
250 B 14 In the instant case the appellant plaintiff is an allottee in terms of the West Bengal Co operative Societies Act 1983
He has a right to possess the premises for a period of 99 years as a heritable and transferable property
During that period he has a right to let out the premises and enjoy the rental income therefrom subject to the statu tory terms and conditions of allotment
The certificate of allotment is the conclusive evidence of his title or inter est
No doubt he has to obtain the written consent of the Society before letting out the premises
But once let out in accordance with the terms of allotment specified in the statute he is entitled to enjoy the income from the proper ty
Although he is a lessee in relation to the society and his rights and interests are subject to the terms and condi tions of allotment he is the owner of the property having a superior right in relation to the defendant
As far as the respondent is concerned the appeliant is his landlord and the owner of the premises for all purposes dealt with under the provisions of the Act
250 C E 15 Hence
the High Court and the first appellate court were wrong in setting aside the decree of the trial court solely on the question of 247 appellant s title which was never an issue at any stage of the trial
There was no plea to that effect and no issue was therefore framed on the question
This being the position the appellant s claim has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings ie on the basis that he is the owner of the premises in question
Accordingly the Judg ments of the High Court and first appellate court are set aside and the matter remanded to the first appellate court for fresh disposal of respondent tenant s appeal on merits
250 E G