A ? i-F^ HIGH COURT OF OtlHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR raimoNEB RE8FQNDENT8 >»<s PETmONER RE8TONDENT8 WRn' PETITION No. 22 < Dr. P.V.Chandrakar VERSUS State ofaihattisgtuh & OQ^fs k rf WMT PETITION No. 1097 efWS Dt. Bhagwant Sinsfi VERSUS Pt. Ravi Shankar StaAla Uaiversity and imotfaa- t./ Post forwder on ^ July, 2007 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GAKH AT BILA8PUR WRir PETmON No. 22 of20US PETIT10NER RE8PONDENTS Dt. P.V.Chand-akar Aged ahmrt 53 yeais S/0 Shri Bhagwat Rasad Oiandrakar Professor, Depaitae^ of Comparative Religon and Hrilosophy PL Ravidankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) 492010 VERSU8 1. State of Chhattisgarii Throu^i <faje Secretary of Collegiate Educatioa, D.K-S^, Bhawai^ Mantaiaya, Raipur(C.O.) 2. Cominissioner Collegiate Educatioa Sciaace College Caaipus Raitxir,(C.G.) 3. Pt Ravi.shankflTvStaukla Vishwavidyidaya Throu^i the Registear Raipur (G.G.) 4. Cbancellor Pt Ravishantar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipw(C.O.) 5. Vice ChaneeUor Pt. RavidankM- Shri L Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur(C.G.) PETmONER &ESPONDENT8 WRIT PETITION No. 1097 of20flS Dr. Bhagwant Sn^L.S/oLite-SanarBahadBrSuql^ Aged about 48 yeass, Reader aad Head of ftfr Etepartmait ofConqiarath®SriBpon and HaBmoply, R; Ram Shanka-ShuklaUnivasity, RayuF(C.G.) VER8US : 1. Pt. Ravi ShaAar Shukla Uiuversity Throu^i the Rsgistrar, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Viee-Chancellor, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shdda Unh'K'sily, Raipur(C.O.) WEITPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CON^'ITUTIQN CffiiNDIA StoaIeBencto: Utmi'btoJustteStalSattiiR.ABBBiirtri. Pnsent: In W.P. Na. 22/2085 Shri KanakTiwari, Sr. AdvocatevridiShriJSendraPali,AdvQcate.fia-.tfae petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Mooifey, Dy. AdTOcate GeaeralwAh SmL Anju Ahuja,I^t. Oovfc Advoeate for the State/respondeut No. 1 aad 2. Sbri J.R.Venna, Advocate witii SlmC.R.Sahu, Advoe^e forreqKWtdeHtNo. 3 &5. Shri Prashant Mishra 8r. Advocate with Shri Sanjay 8. Agrawal, Advocatefor the respondant No. 4. ' tnW.F.No.l«»7aB8S Dr. Bhagwaat Smgb, Petitioner in pwson. Shri J.R.Vama, Advoeate with Shn C.R.Sahu, Advocate-fortiie respottdMts. OKDER (Passed ssa .. l^.day of Jufy, 2007} 1. Botto the petitions i.e. W.P. No. 22/2005 and W.P. No. 1W7/2005 arise fromthe same cause of action and the wder impupied herein in both the petitioas is also the same. Thus, both Ihe petitions are being disposed ofby Ifais commoa order. 2. By Ihis petition, the petitioner in W.P. No. 22/2005 (hereinafter referred to as "first petitioner") challenges the legality and v&lidity of the tennmation/ eancellation order dated 01.01.2005 (AnnexureP/14) passed by the Registnr of tiie respondent University, pursuapt to &e orda-dated 24.12.2004 of tfie Chancellor ofthe University (Amiexure 1/34). 3. The indisputable facts, in nutdtell, are that the first petitioner alongwith &•. Bhagwant Sin^i and othws, atyliri tbr appointment on the post of profesror in Comparatree Religion and Philosophy pursuant to tfie advertisemetrt dated 24.09.2002 (Anuexure P/l). The applicants were requiredto gwe fheiracactenic qualffieatitms fr<Mn matdculation onwards in the q)plieation fonn (Amaxure P/2). 4. It is adnritted Aat the first petitioner did not menlion in tte cohnnn aboirt. examinatioa ofB.Se. (nelunmary) ExaannattBn. The Selection Conauttee, having considered the case of the applicaats including Dr. Hiagwaiit Sn^i, reconaaended the aame of Ae first petitiotier and the fiist petitKaer vrais accordii^ly appointed as professor in Comparative Religion and Philogophy tbr a period oftwo years on probation by order dated 20.09.2(t03 (Anne3ansP/3). Ttoe constituti<Mi ofthe Selection Connmttae is not in disputifc.The first petiticaier joined duty as professor on 20 Sept. 2003 after-tioon (Annexure P/5). 5. Dr. Bhagwant Singh, (petitioner ia W.P. No. 1097/2005) (hOTeiaaflerB^ired to as'the seeond petitiona-") being a^ieved, mads a connirfaurt to the Chancefflor/ respondent No. 4 pointinK out niegularities coamutted in tiw SelectKm eomnuttee by recorameuding the name ofthe first petitionerfor appointmsnt: on the post of Professar of Comparative Religion aad Philosophy ignoring fiie fad that the first petitioner has not given details of B.Sc. (ftelinuaaiy) exaarinati<Mi which was required to be flimished in the colunm of afiademic qualification (flsom matriculation onwards). A notice was issued to flie University on 9.12.2003 (Annexure R/4-1). The respondent No. 3 / University seitt its response /conunents on 7.1.2004. 6. Thereafter, the office of the CfaancellQT, after 'feonsidering tfae report of the University, referred 1fae matter to Ihe Secretaiy, Higher Educati<»for repart on the issue. A notice as issued to the fis;sS petitioner on S Ju!y, 2004 fixam flie ofBce of the Comcrissioner, HighM- Education, Govemment of ChhattisgaA (Annexure P/9). The first petitioner, vide letter dated 12.7.2004 (Aimexure P/ll) sufenritted Us reply to tihe notice of the Cwnmissioner, Higher Edueation. fbe Comnrissioner, after havmg conducted proper enquiry by sumiiMming tiie papers Iromal! the concemed, submitted fais report vide covering letter dated 22 Jul^ 20)4 (Annextff®1/32) (AtBiexure 1/33). 7. The Chancellor after having CQnsidaed the report subnutted byte Univereity and the report submitted by 1he Govemment, in exercise of its power vnder seetimi 12(4) ofthe Chhattisgarh Universities Act, 1973 (hMeinafter referred to as 'to Act, 1973') cancelled the decision ofthe Selection Conumttee dated 12.09.2003, and also that ofthe Executive Council on 20.09.2003 approvmgtiie decisionrfthe Sslection Comnuttee subsequentty. It was (Mrected to hold interview a fi^sh for the post of Professor, Comparative Religion and NulosojAy, after calliug open applications and strictly complying with tiie provisions offhe Act, lc>73. Putsuant to Ihe order of the Chanceltor, Ifae University, vide order dated 81.01.2005 (Aimexure P/14), caacelled the deeision of Ihe Executre® Councfl dated 20.09.2003 and cotasequently, the appointment oflfae first petitianw <m tiie post of fhe Professor ofComparative Religion and PUlosophy was also cauieUed. 4 ^ 8. Being aggriwed, the petitioner has filed Uiis petition seekiag a wrt ofcertiorari to quash Ifae impugied temrination / eancellation order and also tiie Mder passed by the resp<mdent No. 4 amiutling tfae proceedmgs oflfae Executive Couneil. 9. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1097/2005, being aggnwed by fee order of Ifae Chancellor, seeks for a writ in fhe nature of mandamus to appwfsli: sectmd petitioner on tiie post of Professw, Department of Conqiaiatfve Religlon and Philosophy as he was at No. 1 in the waiting l)st after eanceliati<» of Ifae appoiutment oftto first petitioner. He was entitled to be appointed as professor on flie said post. \'S 10. Shri Kanak Tiwari, leamed senior counsel with Shri JitendtaPati, learaed coimsel q)pearing for the fiist petitioner would submtt that tiie report satautted by the Conmussioner/Secretary, Ooveroment of Chhattisgarii to •ttie Chancellw was aot supplied to the first petitioner. The order dated 24.12.2004 pursuautto whieh 1he inq»ugpedtemrination / eancellation order was passed, was also aot fiunished to him. He would further subniit that once the Setection Comnnttee was Aiiy constitorted under provisions of Section 49(2) of the Act, 1973 atairiling the recommendation and snbsequent approval of the Executive Council by Ihe Chancellor is not withmtfae jiirisdiction oflfae Chancellor in exa-eise ofite power under Section 12(4) ofthe Act, 1973. Non-mentiomng ofedu<2itional (pialificatfon of B.Sc. (Prelimiuary) does not affect matenaUy the merit of flie p^itioner for appointment oftiie petitioner on Ihe post ofProfessor. Eatire enquuy procee^igs conducted by tfie Secretary/Conmassioner, Higfaer Education was beyond ite jurisdiction and the petitioner did not have sufficient reasonable oiyortunity. The opipiou of Ihe Secretary 1taat tiie petitioner has munmum qualification aad sufiBcient experience in teadung higher classes, researcfa papef publicatian etc. was completely ignored. Thus, it cannot be held fcat non-supply of mf<amalion with regard to B.Se. (Preliminary) examiaation was an uregularity. 11. It was further contended that Ihe inqmpied orda- deserves to be quashed on account of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient reasonable q)poriumty ofhearing. The enquiry was condueted at tiie behest ofthe second petitioaer. The petitioner was not suppUed report ofthe Secretary sutanitted to tiie respondeat No. 4 and tte order passed by the respondent no. 4 piusnaid to vdiieh the impugned tennination order was passed, was also not supplied to him. 12. On lUe other hand, Shri V.V.S.Mowthy, leamed'Deputy Advoeate Oeneral with Smt Anju Ahuja, leamed Dq)uty Ctovemment Advocate, qxpeariag for the respondent/State would sutmut tl^at the reqwndent no. 1 and 2 aze not neeessaty parties as they are neither tfie appointing audiodty nor the temunatiim authcrity. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have conducted 1he enquiry witfa regard to the appomtment ofthe petitioner at tfae directioH oflfae Chancellor and enquiry report was accordingly submitted on 12.10.2004 (Annexure 1-33). 13. Shri Prashant Mishra, leamed seirior counsel wilfa Shri Sanjay S. Agravrol, l^raed counsel appearing fw 1he reqpondeat No. 4/Chancellor, would subnut Aat 1fae respondent no. 4, on receiving the complaint from flie second petitioaa-, has issawd notice to the University seeking its comments on Ifae subject vide letta- dated 09.12.2003 (Annexure R/4-1). The resp<ndent Univa-sity submitted its comments on 7.1.2004 (Annexure R/4-3) stating that Ihe Selection CotMmittee has exaniiaed • the comparative qualification ofthe (n-esent petitioner. On perual oftfae report, submitted by the University, it was found Ihat the compar^ve diart of the caadidates before the Selectioa Committee did not contain maito obtdned by the second petitioner whwein he had secured first division in the Intennediate Examination. 14. He would fartfier contend that on enquiry, it was found th^. relevaut materials were not placed before Ifae Comniittee aad soine rekvant mformation was suppressed by the petitioner, accordiagly the Chancellor found that the proceedings of Ifae selection committee wea-e prejudicial to the iirtCTest of the Uaiversity, thus, in eseercise ofits pawer under sub seetion 4 ofSeetioa 12 rfthe Aet, 1973 annulled proeeedings ofthe selection eQmtaitteeas well as Aat ofthe Exeeutive Council recommending the name ofthe petitioner for s^pmntment on the post of Professor. Submissi(» of non-fiumshing of details of B.Sc. (Prelnninary) is relevaut as Ae same amounts to ctmceatoaent (tf-te fact 15: The secorid petitioner, Dr. BhagwantSmgh aiysarmginperson, per confra, would submit 1hat the power vested in the Chancellor under provisions ofsub-Section; 12 does aot limit die juris<Uction and ppwer oftheChanceUoras.ifit is fotmd Aat aay proceedin^ may be ofthe selectfon committee or ofthe Executive Council is irregular aad tiot in tfae interest ofthe University and prejudicial to ths interest of the Univeisity, tiie Chaneellor is competent to amiul Ihe same. The first petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing as the notice was issued by Itae oftice ofthe Comnussioner, Higher Education and the petitioner has submitted his detailed reply to the notice putting fbrward his ease. The Chancetlw had taken decision to annul fhe proceedures on the basis of overall facts and irreeularities noticed in consideration ofthe proceedings. With reeard to his appouitment, he would submit that the Chancellor oueht to have directed appointaent of Ifae second petitioner on the post of I^-ofessor of Coinparative Religion and Philosophy. 16. Shri J.R.Verma, leamed counsel with Shri C.R.Sahu, leamed counsel appeaamg for the respondent University would subnrit ttatlfae ChanceHor respotABlt- 4 has jurisdiction to annul fhe proceedings. The University has complied with the order passed by tfie Chancellor dated 24.12.2004 which is binding on the respondent Umversity and there is no irrenilarity in the impugied osder dated 01.01.2005. 17. I have bsssad leamed counsel appearing for the parties,.perused the pleadings and documerrts appended thereto. It is evident that 1toe fu-st petitiona- vras given sufficient <q)pwtunity ofhearing before Ifae orderdated 24.12.2004 was passed. The petitioner was supplied a copy ofdie complaint made by Ae second petitioner vide covering letter dated 8 July 2004 (Anaexure P/9). The first petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 12.7.2004 (Aimexure P/ll) witfa all tiie necessary doeumeiits. The Commissioner, after having conducted tte aiqun-y at the mstaice of the Chancellor, suteutted his report to 1fae SecretMy, Htghw Eifaicatian DepartmeA, Govemment of Clihattis^ifa vide letter dsted 22 July, 2004 (Amiexure 1/32) otasewed as under: » "4. Wff RwRflltclfl 3lRlPl<l*l Sg ^PWff ^ WIKRq? ^NtnA tft ^t t ? •k.- ll. '{R?i''»>'t %«t?i RwRairi<i SRT d?i>tlwd' spf ^ ^f?Riwa ftn. ^ ainrf ^l U4!^<fr ^R ^ RsllMf •t'*!!* 30S3/Wi/2002 IX'lf^ 24/MI/fl2 *? SI^ feqT'qqmaw sn^^w^ ^^ ^i ^f^BTO sntw ^ ^ wei^ ^ ^ (I«ITsn^r wK ^t uiN %? 5 «i*qWqy%t gt.TR ^ WRTR^TI^ SSI'TO ^niT f^MRtilldq «|S|Pl<lt*)l-I<HI'i WcT 4 1 m^^fr-^ft^ W dN W^ ^ 1?^ ^R «feetl t>lR) ^ Pl^iiill-l-dN ftffq ft!?li<stT ^ ^ft *1^ un^ttm'WWRW? ig ^q-f 'uPiRi w ii*)i'<»»')fetiT ofRir t! %'r ftRi^N TRf 4 ftfgpCT ^ 'ft ^cirfSpifir SRT ^N l^vr R^Nsil w snnN?r f^ir ^pir w WR wft 'EM' ^R^T ^qRqtT ^t a^l ^f 1RT IR p!%1^1 gTf6|<l>l<1 <<>l41tRt4 t ftra^ 1t •U'S'W s^ R"1*y ^ ^ <H«{'t<j %F. 1ift.^. ieisiq»< ^t pl^Rti ^ WPI 3{^iR<(^ ^ (1) <ft •41'Sdrt rid|«h< (2) ^Ntft ^ftfflr RffiTfrt t^ftWePI aiWPPTW (4) (5) «? ai^'tti'! •(iiaicbK ^ WRfe ^ ^IeT 4 a'^i?!'Rl(f ^Nf TPff ^T 'af'^'bl q>rf X(R^ ^ <d!4^"( 4 ?hfr ^ift^ «ri^11^w TR^ (i) ^. dt.^. X^T^? (2) ^f. *i<!4d Rfe ?mr ^< w? ^ (t) ®f.1ft.^t. 4sikt»< (2) sf. "nifl wrf rt(UW|ri gapr -aqRRT 3jn)aflL ^ ;'!W V? pirfq fear "fT'n ^!! ^ aff W^ tm Ttfttl ?hlT t fe -SW-T wftRr ^t <t»t4^ ^ 1^te ^ l^ wi^w wir "nr Wft V^ 1WPTO qqf .igT ^ | *|4^n1 ^ ft-ft^ ^ 3i«(cii«we ?? TOT ^ -^Rff t fe flffl?T SRT ^FfttT ^RT ^ ? ^Pff W 'q^f ^. t-m ^ ^"!l^«t?*f^R ^«W8raR«RT »*q«ff%t pjarf&rr f^ar ^1^ f | yg ftnfq w sf^.i •:r€f gW ^! Ri?dR|^!e!<j gifePPPi 1973 ^ aigpHR f^tTO t2/(»/0»<^ «ll<tl!(«t>t'iWP-f §3fTft-rw 20/M/03 ^t «t>l4tRq4 ^t tiW WT"T^I" 18. ThCTeafter,the Coanmssioner,Higher EdueatienDepartment, sent a letta-dated 12.10.2004 to the Secretary, Oovemor House (Annexure 1/33) obswved as untor 8 "Per-se even if Dr. P.V.Chaadrakar's B.Sc. (Preliminary) results ai» taken to be a eoncealed inforaiatioa, and is included ia his applieatioa fonn, it is not going to have any material impact on the status oif valuatioa of Professor Chandrakar because uf the Vidiwavidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973, 49(4) under which the selection cMimuttee has perfonaed its duti^ i.e. Evaluation is based solely oa flie peAHnance ofthe candidates based on the questions asked at the mterview. There is no evideiiee as to how much weightage has been accorded to Academic aehievements, Research Publieation, Books Published, Researeh Guidaaee, Semiaare & Syaqiosia attisnde<L 2kfaeove^1h<»e . • is no poiat in going what has transpired fltto selection commlttee meeting wtee his Excellency's nominee and Ifae thm Secretmy's Hocninee were presert fcu- an impartial seleeticn as per rutes." 5. The Chancellor, after having exanrined the comments of ttie Universily Mid the » reports subnritted by die Connmssio^er, Hi^ier Education and Secretary, Hi^ier '•\~. Educatitm Department, held asunder: "T.RespoHdentft-.-P.V.QiandrakarfaasadnBttedtiiatvrtute a^lying for the post &f Lechu-er ia 1986 he had metdioneii &e resuit of B-Sc. (Prel;), but it was not necessary to mention fhe result'and tfaerefere, he Swdjiot meriiioaed Ifae result ofB.Sc. (Prel.) in th? present appUeattQB for the post of Professor. According-to the respondent he has not suj^essed aay materi^ infiM'matioB and the decisioa eftiw seleetioa eonmrittee which cwisists of e3q»erls Fegaidmg fce relative merits of , ttoeandtdatesoaafflotbechallenggdandtfaeCourt/aiyeIlatemidiority oaa not sit in judgment over the decision ofthe selertioa cQmauUiee. From the perusaloftfae photo eopy offte qpplieatioii fwm it is dear Ihat tfae eandidates were to mention tiieir aeadanic qualifications i laafriculatioa onwards. As per die ordtaanee 21(3) of Pt. R.S.U., Raipur B.Sc. (Prelmamary) is equivalentto ato'mediate imd as perfhe ordmance 21(9) flieresults ofB.Se. (PFelflfflmaty) shaH be <tetCTtAie<t m^pendently. fa view oftius respoiadenr Ifc P.V.Ghandrakar was- . bouad fo meaticn the result ofhis B.SC. ^'relimitiai'y) examinatien in Ifae application fonn wMch he had not mentioned. Respondent Dr. P.V.Chaadrakaf had passed B.SC. (PrelinaaMy) ia 1968 in pass division with compartaient ia Chemistry secaring oiriy 37.33 matks. The fesult of iatennediate ofappellant Efr. Ha^vaat Si^i was aot shown ia fte comparative table wfeich was placed before the-seleetion coinmittee in wliieh he (appellwt) had secured Srst div-isiou. As aucb, all tiie relevant material was not placed before tfae selec^on committee. Respondait Dr. P.V.Chandrakar who had metdicned his. B.Sc. (Prelaninary) examination result in his applieation vrtlite ' applymg fbr Ae posl of Lecturer in 19.86 haddeliberidelyandwWi .malafide intention suppressed the result in the present applicafeni: In additioa to this, it is not clear as to how much pereentage of ttrtal marics were aUoeaterf fin- •Sae oral mterview testbeeause more than 15% oftto total maiks has heen held by the Supreme Coi.nt to be arbitrary, uiireas<»able and eonsequeatly uneoastitutioaal. FKKHdie perosaloflfae material on record it is cteartihat eventiie minHtos oftto meetiag of tfae selectian eomautteedated 12.09.2003 have not beaa 20. 21. siyied by Ite Vice Chaacellor wfao is tiw Chain'naa offhe Selection Committee." and ordwed to allow tfae sippeal fUed by the seeond petitioner in part. The(teisRn of tfae selection eommittee d^ed 12.09.2003 and subsequent approval ty flie Executive Council of20.09.2003 was aimulled aad tfae Univasitywas ^rectedto hold a fresh selection for appomtment <m Ifae post of R-ofessor, after calliag applications and strietly complymg with Ihe provisions ofthe Aet, 1973 and tiie statute and ordinance made tfiereof. The contentioa ofthe leamed eounset for Ifae petitioner Ifaat he had no suffideqt oppOTtimity of hearing is rejedted. The petitioner had an <q)pQrtunity to put fQrward his case as the first petitioner has subautted his response to the Swretaiy to the ChafflceUor, respondent No. 4 also on 9.11.2004 (Aanexure P/13). The Supreme Court, in the matter of Viveka Nand Seflu v. Chaimian, J&K Baak IM has observed that "the principles of natural justice are requiied to be compliedwith having regard to the tacts mid cireumstances obtammgtheram. It caiinot be put in a straitjacket formnla. Itcannot be applied in a vacuum wifliout reference to tfae relevant facts and circumstances ofthe case. The prineiple of natiual justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse". The fects andcu'eumstancesoftfae present case as stated-above indicates sufficient compliance of principtes of natural justice. Tlie gievance of the petitiwier that tte report of the Conamissioner/Seeretaiy, Highw Education Department, tto State ofehhattisgarh and order ofthe Oovemor puisuMrt to which the impugned order was passed was not communieated to the firat petitioner, does not survive as flw petitioner had sufEdent opportunity before the Comnussioner, Higjier Education and 1*8 h^ suhmitted his response to the Chancellor also. In ths matter of P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of fodia aad Ofeers, the Supreme Court observed as undw: 10 "30. The principles ofnaturaljustiee camiot be put in a straitjacket f(Mmula. It must be seea in circuBistantial flesdbility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change." 22. The Supreme CoiirL in the matter of Neelima Mishra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Otfaers observed as under: 29. The Chancellor, however, has to act properly for Ifae pi(upose for which the power is confeired. He naist tdae a deoision in accordanee withthe provisionsoftheAct and tfae datotes. He anist uot be guided by extraneousw uTelevant.-eonsideration. He must not act UlegaUy, irrationally OT arbitrarily. Any sud Ulegal, irrational or atbitrary actiw or decision, wiathM ialfae natutBofa legislative, admimstrative or quasi-judicial exereise of power is liable to be quashed being viplativ® <rf Atticle 14 of tte Constitution......" 23. Th fte case of Dalpat AbasahsB Solunke & Othsrs v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Oters", the Suprenae Court observed as luider: "12.. ...Whelfaer a candidate is fit for a particutar post ornot has to be deeided by the duly constituted Seleetion Committee wirieh has 1fte expertise on tfae subject. The court has no sucfa espertise. The deetsi<Mi ofthe Seleetion Cotaaaittee ea»beiatorfeFedwMh «tly<M limited ymmds, sueh as Ulegality orpatent materirfirregularity in tlie constttutiai offce Cc»Haiittee w its proeedufe viti^m®ttie selection, OT proved mala fides affecting the seleetion ete." 24. In the matter of District Collector & ChairmaH, ViziMiagn-am Soeial Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and another v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, thaSupreme Court observed as under: "6. It must furttier be reatised by al! concamed tlat when an advertisement mentkms a particular qualificatioii Mid an app<Mitm«rti» made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter onty between Ihe appointing autfaority aiNl the appointee eonceiaed. The a^rieved areall those who had similar or evai better qualificatioas Aai tbe appointee or appointees but \tAo had not applied for fte post beeause fl»ydid not possess Ae qualifications mentioned in tfie advertisemeni It amonrts to .'afraudonpublie to appomt persons witb inferior qualificatietis in sueh ciFeumstances unless it is clearly stated that tiie qualificaticms are rdasable. No cowt should be a party to flw perpetuat»ai <rf tte fi'audulent practice. We are afiaid that the Tribunal tort aight of tins fact." 25. InthematterofSecy. Deptt.GfHomeSecy.A.P.aHdolliersv.B.ChniamNaidu, the Supreme Court observed as undOT: 11 "7. .As is noted in Kewhiya Vidyalcya Sangatfam case tfae object of requii-ing information ia various CQlunms like eohunn 12 oflfae attestation form and declaration thereafler by the candidate is to aseertaia and verify the eharacter and airteeedents tojudgeUs suitAilily to enter into OT contimie in service. Wien a can^date su(yresses ; material mformation and/or gives &lse infonnation, he cannot elaim any ri^rt fw appomtmeut or continuance ia sa-vice. There can be no dispute to this position in law." 26. The Hi^i Court of Madhya PradeA, in Anuradha Sh<nneshwar Gupta v. Rayishankar University, Raipur and olfaers , while eonsidering the authority offce •^ Chancellor vis-A-vis reeommCTidation made by the SelectiiQn Coimmttee apjwoved by fhe Executive Council observed as unden \ "24......The Selection CommBtee under the seheme of secti<»i 49 is - only a reconameiidatory ccmimittee which is CQnstitutedtaapormiIy for eondurtofasdeetiottVK-a-vispartieularadvertisementforapMttOular post It is also elear tiiat the fimctions ofthe Selection Conamittee are ova- as soon as it submits its reportto Ihe Essecutive Couacil andit is tiie Exeeutive Council, which is a body ofthe Univa-sity, \ii4uch takra decision. It was eoiitendedbylfae leamed eounselthat ia v-iew ofseetioa 49(5), the Executive Council was bound to follow the decision ofthe Selection Conaaittee and Iherefore, so long as the decision of d» Selection Committee was not set aside or annulled, &e Executive Couneil was bound to accept it." "30. In the ligbt oftfae diseussi(»m^e above, Iherefore, the action taken by Kuladhipati in amiulling Ifae proceedings of tfae Executive Council and the consequeatial amnrimait of fhe a{q)omtment of the petitionw eould not be said to be, m aay mamier, bey<»idtliesccy®of authority or wifiioutjurisdiction. As discussedearlier, it couldnot tee eoatendedthatKuladupatihascommittedaayCTror&flaw." 27. -^)plying fhe well settled principles of law to the faets ofAe case on hand, it is found that in 1he facts aad eireumstances ofthe case, tiie principles of natural justioe is conylied wifli fitlly. The first' petitioner could not have pven more details than what he had submitted before Ifae Commissioaa-, Hi^isr Education, who was conducting the enquiry and fiirther before the Chancellor himself. Thus, there is no infirauty in fhe enquiiy. 9 28. So far as fhe power ofthe Chancellor is concemed, bare readina ofprovisions of Section 12(4) offlie Act, 1973 makes it clear fliat the Chancellor hasjurisAetion and power to amml the proeeedings of fhe Exeeutive Council approviflg the 9. 12 recommendations ofthe Selection Comnuttee after havmg found irregularity in Ifae selection process which is not inthe interest ofthe University. Thus, fee impugEted order as well as tiw order dated 24.12.2004 passed by the resptadent No. 4 isjnst- and valid and does not warrant any interferenee. This Court, m case of appomtmeHt of Ihe employees has limtted power to exainme the process of selection, not the decisimi itself. The petition of tiie first petitioner W.P. No. 22/2005 is aceordmgly disnussed. rf fa view ofthe reasons stated hereinabove, since tte selectkMi mocess iteelfhas been caacelled, the seeond petitionertos no ri^rtto be apppinted on the said post. Thus, fhe WritPetition No. 1097/2005 isalsodisnussed. No oider as to eosts. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge 1. (2005)5 SCC 337 2. (2006) 8 SCC 776 3. (1990)28ce 746 4. (1990) 1SCC 305 5;(^990)3SCC655 6. (200,5) 2 SCC 746 7. (19S2) vol. 27 M.P.L.J. 180