IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 382 of 2006 (S/B) Dr. Shiv Dutt Sharma. .……… Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor, Kumaun University & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the intervener. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 31 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, the Selection Committee for appointment of a teacher of a University comprises of, amongst others, three experts when the teacher is either a Professor or a Reader. In the instant case, the petitioner offered himself for being selected for appointment to a post of Professor. He appeared before the Selection Committee when he noticed that though the same is comprised of three experts, but two of them, according to the petitioner, ought not to have had been made part of the Selection Committee. He, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition principally challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee. 2. In terms of the orders passed on the petition, the result of the selection has not yet been declared. It is the contention of the petitioner that one of the members of the Selection Committee was Professor Gurupal Singh. According to the petitioner, as stated by him in paragraph 19 of the petition, C.B.I. took in custody the said Professor Gurupal Singh in connection with alleged malpractices pertaining to evaluation of examinations conducted by the Punjab Public Services Commission. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has relied upon a publication 2 of Indian Express. The said publication suggests that the Vigilance Bureau of Punjab allegedly picked-up Professor Gurupal Singh. The Newspaper containing the report of picking-up of Professor Gurupal Singh by the Vigilance Bureau is dated 4th July, 2002. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 1st June, 2002. On the basis of the knowledge derived from the paper report dated 4th July, 2002, it is not possible for us to hold that nomination of Professor Gurupal Singh as an expert in the Selection Committee so constituted was improper. 3. Another expert Dr. Ramnath Gairola, according to the petitioner, retired as Reader of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Campus Pauri. In order to suggest that Dr. Ramnath Gairola retired as a Reader, the petitioner is relying upon true copy of an office order described as ‘letter of superannuation’. The said office order is of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar. Dr. Ramnath Gairola has not been arrayed as a party to the writ petition. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, is not a party to the writ petition. In absence of them and in view of the nature of the evidence supporting the contention that Dr. Ramnath Gairola was a mere Reader at the time of his retirement, it is not possible to conclude that Dr. Ramnath Gairola was, in fact, a Reader immediately before his retirement. On the other hand, it is the case of Kumaon University, Nainital, that the Chancellor, at the time of nominating Dr. Ramnath Gairola as one of the experts, described him as Professor. In those circumstances, it would not be possible for us to hold that constitution of the Selection Committee in question was improper. 4. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition and vacate the interim order. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 04.10.2010 04.10.2010 G