Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.
1. The appellant challenged the selection and appointment of the second respondent as Reader in the School of Chemical Sciences. The petition having been dismissed by the learned single Judge, he has filed the present appeal. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
2. On September, 26, 1996, the University advertised various posts of Teachers in different Departments. This included the post of Reader in the School of Chemical Sciences. The post was in the specialisation of Inorganic Chemistry. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the qualification for the post shall be 'as prescribed by the U.G.C.'. The appellant alleges that the qualifications had been laid down by the University Grants Commission vide letter dated October, 16, 1991. These had been accepted by the University and were embodied in Ext. P7. According to this decision of the University, the qualifications for the post of Reader were as follows:-
'II (a) Readers (Direct Recruitment)
Essential Qualifications
1. A first class Master's degree or a second class Master's degree with at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade of Master's degree level of the Indian University or a Foreign University recognized by the University in the subject concerned.
2. Either a research degree of a Doctorate standard or published research work of high standard adjudged as equivalent to Doctorate Standard by the experts in the selection committee.
3. Eight years experience in teaching and/or research other than the period spent for Doctoral research and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational renovations, design of new curriculum, courses etc.
Note:- The person concerned should have the qualification/experience at the time of submission of the application.'
Alleging that the second respondent did not fulfil these qualifications, the appellant approached this Court to challenge his selection and appointment as a Reader.
3. The claim made by the appellant was contested by the respondents. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent. He laid claim to a good academic record. He also took the plea that the qualifications as mentioned in Ext. P7 had been duly modified by the University vide Notification dated December, 1, 1993. A copy was produced as Ext. R2(b). According to the decision of the University, the prescribed qualification for the post of Reader were as follows:-
'(1) Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Candidates from outside the University system shall in addition also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Master's Degree level.
(2) Eight years of teaching and/or research including up to three years for research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarships as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula.'
4. The learned single Judge after hearing the matter held that the second respondent was duly qualified. There was no infirmity in the selection. Thus, the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
5. The solitary contention raised by Mr. Ramakumar, learned counsel for the appellant is that the decision of the University as embodied in Ext. R2(b) does not conform to the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. Thus, the second respondent cannot be described as being qualified for the post of Reader. The claim as made on behalf of the appellant has been contested by learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The short question for consideration is - Does the order dated December, 1, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Ext. R2(b), conform to the provisions of the Act?
7. It is admitted position that the Academic Council had not been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act till the year, 1995. However, the Vice Chancellor of the University in exercise of the powers under Section 10(17) of the Act had proposed the fixation of certain qualifications in the light of the 'scheme' issued by the University Grants Commission. The proposal of the Vice Chancellor was considered by the Syndicate in the meeting held on September, 30, 1991. Thereafter, the qualifications as incorporated in Ext. P7 were duly notified. The factual position is contained in Ext. P7 itself. The order can be usefully noticed. It reads as under:-
'The Government vide G.O. read (1) above had implemented U.G.C. Scheme in Universities and affiliated colleges in the State for the overall development and review of the status of higher education. In view of the implementation of the U.G,C. Scheme, qualifications of teachers in Universities and affiliated colleges had to be amended. The Government vide letter read (2) above forwarded the draft amendment to the regulations relating to the qualification of teachers of Universities and affiliated colleges. Section 39 of Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 empowers the Academic Council to make regulations prescribing qualification of teachers. As the Academic Council is not in session the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers of the Academic Council vested in him vide Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 approved on 23.7.1991 the following amendment proposed to the regulations in the wake of implementation of U.G.C. Scheme. The Syndicate at its meeting held on 30th September, 1991 considered the following amendments of the regulations relating to qualification of teachers made by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers of the Academic Council vested in him vide Section 10(17) of Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 and resolved to approve the amendment of regulations relating to qualification of teachers w.e.f. 23.7.91, the date on which the amendments were made by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers of Academic Council vested in him vide Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.'
A perusal of the above shows that the qualifications as proposed by the Vice Chancellor under Section 10(17) of the Act had been approved by the Syndicate by way of an amendment of the Regulations relating to the qualifications of teachers. Thereafter, the order dated December, 1, 1993 was promulgated. It reads as under.
'The Syndicate at its meeting held on 14.10.1993 considered the qualifications prescribed by the University for the post of Reader (Open Selection) and resolved to amend the qualifications as per the UGC norms for the post of Reader (Open Selection) in the University departments as follows:
(1) Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Candidates from outside the University system shall in addition also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Master's Degree level.
(2) Eight years of teaching and/or research including up to three years for research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula. University Orders issued referred as item No. I prescribing the qualifications for the posts of Readers (Open Selection) of the University Departments stands modified to that extent.
Orders are issued accordingly.'
A perusal of the above shows that the Syndicate had amended the qualifications in accordance with the U.G.C. Scheme.
8. The precise contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Syndicate was not competent to amend the qualifications. Is it so?
9. As already noticed, the qualifications had been initially approved by the Syndicate vide order dated October, 16, 1991, thus the Syndicate was amending its own order. Could it not do so?
10. A reference to the provisions of the Act shall be necessary to answer this question.
11. The Constitution of the Syndicate is contained in Section 21. It has been inter alia provided that 'The Syndicate shall be the chief executive body of the University....'. The powers of the Syndicate have been enumerated in Section 23. It provides that 'The executive powers of the University including the general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate.' In particular, it has also been provided that 'The Syndicate shall have the following powers namely :
(i) to affiliate institutions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such affiliation prescribed in this Act and the Statutes;
(ii) xx xx xx
(viii) to appoint teachers and other employees of the University and prescribe their duties.'
(xxiv) xx xx xx
(xxv) to cancel or amend by a majority of the total membership of the Syndicate and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting, any Regulation passed by the Academic Council:
Provided that no Regulation shall be cancelled or amended by the Syndicate without giving the Academic Council an opportunity to state its opinion on the proposed cancellation or amendment:
12. A perusal of the above provision as embodied in Clause (xxv) clearly shows that the Syndicate has not only the power of superintendence over the affairs of the University, but it has also been specifically empowered to cancel or amend any regulation passed by the Academic Council. Thus, it is clear that the Syndicate was competent to amend the Regulations relating to the qualifications.
13. Mr. Ramakumar submits that by virtue of the proviso, there is a clog on the power of the Syndicate. It could have amended the Regulation only after notice to the Academic Council. Since notice is not shown to have been given, amendment of the Regulation is vitiated.
14. This contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, the plea that the Syndicate hadnot given a notice has not been raised any where in the pleadings. Secondly, it is the admitted position that the Academic Council had not been constituted till the year 1995. Thus, the question of giving any notice to the Academic Council could not have arisen. In fact, since Academic Council did not exist, the regulations had been proposed by the Vice Chancellor. These were initially approved in the year 1991 by the Syndicate. Subsequently in view of the amendment made by the U.G.C., the Syndicate had revised the qualifications vide its order dated December, 1, 1993. It had the right and the reason to do so. The Syndicate is the Chief Executive Authority of the University. There was no infirmity in the action of the Syndicate.
15. In view of the above, the contention as raised on behalf of the appellant is rejected. It is held that the action of the Syndicate in amending the notifications vide order dated December 1, 1993 as embodied in Ext. R2(b) was legal and valid.
16. Mr. Sugathan, learned counsel for the second respondent has pointed out thateven the petitioner himself was not qualified as he has no degree in Inorganic Chemistry.This aspect of the matter need not be gone into, as no argument in this behalf has beenaddressed on behalf of the appellant, despite the finding by the learned single Judgeagainst him.
17. There is another aspect of the matter. It is the admitted position that the second respondent had been appointed as a Reader in November, 1998. He has already been in the position for the last four years. We have gone through his curriculum vitae which has been produced on the record with an additional affidavit vide Annexure B1 filed on June 19, 2001. He appears to have done good research work. It is claimed by him that the papers had been published in the National and International journals. He has two Patents to his credit. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, we find that learned single Judge was wholly justified in refusing to interfere with the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
18. In the Original Petition, plea of bias had been raised. However, at the hearing today, counsel specifically stated that he was not raising this contention. We are recording this fact during the course of diptating the order in the presence of the counsel for the parties. No other point has been raised.
19. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is consequently dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.