Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a direction treating an appointed Assistant Professor as initially appointed only as Lecturer. The rival’s Chancellor representation had concerned his own experience and seniority, rather than a timely statutory challenge to the appellant’s appointment. The High Court should not have entertained an attack on that appointment for the first time after four years. The appeals were allowed and the rival’s writ petition dismissed; the ruling did not establish that delayed acquisition of qualifications generally cures an invalid appointment.
Issues
- Whether a seniority representation could support a first-time challenge in the High Court to a four-year-old appointment without timely resort to the statutory mechanism.
Provisions considered
- Section 53, King George Medical University Act, Uttar Pradesh Act No. 8 of 2002The provision ordinarily requires an appointment reference within three months, while preserving the Chancellor’s exceptional powers. The rival had pursued his own seniority claim rather than timely questioning the appointment under this mechanism. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 27)
Held
- The statutory time requirement promotes early resolution and stability in university appointments. Its exceptional extension power did not turn this representation about experience and seniority into a timely appointment challenge. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 15)
- The appellant’s appointment had followed advertisement, selection-committee recommendation and Executive Council approval. It had not been challenged before the Chancellor in the manner now sought, and the High Court should not have entertained that new challenge years later. (¶¶ 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 26)
- Authorities concerning cancellation of appointments made contrary to mandatory recruitment requirements were distinguished on their facts. The Court did not reject the general principle that an unlawful appointment may be cancelled. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- The Chancellor’s rejection of the representation disclosed no error warranting interference, and the High Court’s direction treating the appellant as a Lecturer could not stand. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court judgment set aside and the rival employee’s writ petition dismissed.