Dinesh Chandra Shukla vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Background
The State of U.P. had sanctioned one post of Lecturer in "Karm Kand" (a Sanskrit ritual studies subject) at Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth University. After an earlier appointee's regularization was set aside, the appellant, Dinesh Chandra Shukla, was engaged as a Guest Lecturer and later selected by the University's Selection Committee for the regular post. However, a power struggle between the University's Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor over the selection process led the Chancellor to annul the recommendation, first on the ground that subject experts weren't included in the Selection Committee, and later, after courts pointed out no university even offered a "Karm Kand" degree, on the ground that the appellant's Sanskrit qualification was not equivalent to "Karm Kand." The Allahabad High Court upheld the Chancellor's rejection, and the appellant, who had by then taught the subject for nearly 16 years, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that neither the University's Statutes nor the recruitment advertisement prescribed any specific qualification for the "Karm Kand" post beyond a postgraduate degree in a "relevant subject," and the University itself conceded this. The Chancellor's later inquiry into whether Sanskrit and Karm Kand were different subjects went beyond the scope of the High Court's earlier remand order (which was only about whether subject experts existed) and was conducted without giving the appellant a chance to respond. The Court also noted that the University's own Academic Council had, during the litigation, formally resolved that qualifications for Karm Kand and Sanskrit Professor posts should be treated as the same. Given this, along with the appellant's nearly 16 years of teaching the subject and the fact that the original Selection Committee (drawn from the Sanskrit Department) had found him eligible, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the University to regularize his services.
Lesson Learnt
When a university's own statutes and advertisement do not spell out precise subject qualifications for a post, an appointing authority cannot invent a stricter, narrower requirement mid-way through litigation to defeat a candidate, especially where the institution's own academic bodies have since clarified that the qualification the candidate holds is treated as equivalent.