S.H.A Raza and Bhagwan Din, JJ.:— The factual matrix in short compass as set out in the writ petition is that a post of lecturer in the Education Department of Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, was advertised. In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner applied for the post. According to the admitted case of the parties, the petitioner's academic record was under—

High School II 56% Inter II 49% B.Sc III 43.2% B.Ed III 53.2% (In theory) 85.5% (In practical) M.Ed II 57.3%

2. The petitioner also possess M. Phil, degree. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee and his name was recommended for appointment on the post of lecturer in the Education Department. The Executive Council did not agree with the recommendation and the matter was referred to the Chancellor. The Chancellor in his order communicated that the Selection Committee was properly constituted but as the petitioner did not possess the consistently good academic record, hence, his appointment was bad and set aside the order.

3. Being aggrieved against the said order the present writ petition has been filed. The thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is three-fold. Firstly; the Chancellor committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record in going beyond the reference of the Executive Council. Secondly: 1989 amendment in the statutes stripping the power of the Selection Committee to give relaxation in the matter of academic qualification is invalid. As it runs counter to Section 7 of the State Universities Act, consistently good academic record is not the basis for selection of Reader and Professor and in some of the Universities the power to relaxation exist. Thirdly: the Selection Committee found the petitioner fit for being selected and intervention of the Chancellor in that regard was invalid, particularly, when lecturers having less or similar qualifications have been selected and have been imparting education as lecturer in Kashi Vidyapeeth.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the recommendation of the Selection Committee could to be deliberated by the Executive Council within a period of four months in consequence thereof under Proviso 8(A) of Section 31 of the State Universities Act, the matter automatically was referred to Chancellor for his decision. Hence, it cannot be said that the Executive Council confined the reference only to one point that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. When be matter came up before the Chancellor for consideration the Chancellor found that the Selection Committee was properly constituted in accordance with the Act and the statutes framed thereunder, but as the petitioner did not possess the consistently good academic record his appointment as lecturer in the Education Department of Kashi Vidyapeeth was vitiated. In view of the aforesaid situation it cannot be said that the Chancellor acted beyond the reference. Even otherwise Section 68 of the State Universities Act confers wide powers to the Chancellor to decide such question.

5. As far as the second submission of the petitioner regarding the invalidit of the amended statute is concerned, it is totally misconceived. Prior to 25.3.1989 the Selection Committee was vested with a power under statute 11.01 to relax the minimum educational qualification, but even doing so it has been consistent view of this court, as well as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Selection Committee was bound to indicate the reasons for relaxing the minimum educational qualification, failing which the recommendation shall be vitiated. Relaxation of minimum educational qualification was permissible only with a rider if the research work of the petitioner or published papers were of high standard. It may be possible that a person could not achieved height or distinction while studying, but after obtaining master degree, he has devoted and committed himself to research, he could achieve greater success, but unfortunately due to plagiarism and corruption the distinction in achieving outstanding research scholarship has been degenerated due to the nefarious activities of few scrupulous people. In view of the aforesaid reason the statute was amended on 25.3.1989, which is reproduced as under—

“In exercise of powers under sub-section 1(a) of Sections of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (President's Act No. 10 of 1973) as reenacted and amended by the Uttar Pradesh Universities (Re-enactment and Amendment Act, 1974) (U.P Act No. 29 of 1973), read with Section 21 of Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act 1904 (U.P Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pieased to make the following Statutes with a view to amending the Kashi Vidyapeeth First Statute 1977—

Kashi Vidyapeeth 18th Amendment First Statutes, 1989

1. (1) This Statute may be called the Kashi Vidyapeeth 18th Amendment First Statute, 1989.

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette.

2. For Statute 11.01 of the Kashi Vidyapeeth First Statute 1977, the following Statutes shall be substituted, namely—

11.01(1) In the case of the Faculties of Humanities (except the Departments of Music, Drawing and Painting) and the Faculties of Social Sciences, Social Work and Commerce, the minimum qualification for the post of a Lecturer in the University shall be Master's Degree or an equivalent Degree of a Foreign University in the relevant subject with atleast 55% percent marks, or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record.

(2) In the case of Faculty of Education, the minimum qualifications for the post of Lecturer in the University shall be Master's Degree or an equivalent Degree of a foreign University in Education (that is an M.Ed degree) with atleast 55% marks or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record.

(3) In the case of Faculty of Law the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the University shall be a degree of Master of Law or an equivalent degree of a foreign University with atleast 55 percent marks or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record.

(4) In the case of Departments of Music, Drawing and Painting in the Faculty of Humanities the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a lecturer in the University, namely—

Either

Master degree or an equivalent degree or diploma recognised by the University in the relevant subject with atleast 55 percent marks or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record;

a traditional or a professional humanist with highly commendable professional achievement in the subject concerned.

(5) For the purposes of this Statute—

(a) A candidate (other than a candidate for Lecturership in the Faculties of Education and Law) having obtained either 55 percent marks in Bachelor's degree examination and second class in Intermediate examination, or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately is said to have consistently good academic record;

(b) A candidate for Lecturership in the Faculty of Education having obtained either 55 percent marks in B.Ed degree examination and second class in any other Bachelor's degree examination, or 50 percent marks in each of the two examinations separately, is said to have consistently good academic record;

(c) A candidate for Lecturership in the Faculty of Law having obtained either 55 percent marks in L.L.B degree examination and second class in any other Bachelor's degree examination or 50 percent marks in each of the two examinations separately, is said to have consistently good academic record.

(6) For appointment to the post of Lecturer only those candidates shall be eligible who, besides fulfilling the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Lecturer, have qualified in a comprehensive test, if any, to be conducted as per scheme of University Grants Commission.”

6. A perusal of the statute would indicate that the minimum qualification of a Lecturer in the University shall be a Master Degree or an equivalent Degree of a foreign University in the relevant subject with atleast 55 percent marks, or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record. For the purposes of the statute a candidate (other than a candidate for Lecturership in the Faculties of Education and Law) having obtained either 55 percent marks in Bachelor's degree examination and second class in Intermediate examination, or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately is said to have consistently good academic record but in the Faculty of Education candidate having obtained either 55 percent marks in B.Ed degree examination and second class in any other Bachelor's degree examination, or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately, is said to have consistently good academic record.

7. Unfortunately, the petitioner in his B.Sc Examination, obtained only 43.2 percent marks and in B.Ed Examination be obtained 53.2 per cent in theory, meaning thereby; he obtained less than 50 percent marks in the Bachelor's degree, hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner possesses consistently good academic record.

8. In view of the aforesaid situation the Selection Committee's recommendation was found to be vitiated by the Chancellor and while rejecting the same the Chancellor accepted the reference made by the Executive Council of the University. There is another matter which requires consideration. At the relevant time when the petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee, the petitioner did not possess the M. Phil. degree, although he was engaged in the research work at that time. Neither the relaxation was given, as far as the minimum educational qualification is concerned, by the Selection Committee nor it would have been given in view of the amended statutes and the name of the petitioner could not have been recommended by the Selection Committee in the light of the statutes 11.04, 11.01(4) Kha of the statutes of Kashi Vidyapeeth.

9. No foundation has been laid down in the writ petition itself as to how the statute 11.01, which came into force on 1989 was invalid. By the aforesaid amendment the endeavour of the Universities is to appoint meritorious Lecturers having consistently good academic record. The importance of the research has not been ignored but the research cannot be said to be a substitute for a bad academic record. May be for that reason the University Grants Commission has introduced the national eligibility tests for the appointment of the Lecturers in Universities and affiliated Graduate and Post Graduate Colleges.

10. We are definitely of the view that the statute referred to above cannot be said to be invalid. It cannot be said that statute has not minimised the importance of the research work and cannot be said to be in violation of Section 7 of the Act.

11. As the entry into a University is through the cadre of Lecturer, hence, there existed no necessity for providing the same qualifications for appointment of Reader and Professor. It is pertinent to mention here that after imparting education for a particular period and engaging himself into research and publishing papers, a lecturer may be entitled to be appointed as a Reader, and after a gap of a particular period he may be appointed as a Professor. Even at that stage the educational qualification, which a Reader or Professor possess, cannot be minimised but, it is not very relevant because by imparting education and engagement in research work and by publishing papers, he acquires distinction and that should be the main criterion for his appointment as a Reader and Professor. If minimum educational qualification i.e, consistently good academic record is not considered to be relevant for the appointment on the post of Reader and Professor is concerned, it cannot be said that a Lecturer can also be appointed if he did not possess consistently good academic record.

12. The contention that in the Universities which are governed by the Central Acts possess the power of relaxation in the minimum educational qualification of Lecturer, hence, stripping of that power by the present statute is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned is untenable in law, because of two reasons. Firstly; that the Universities governed by the Central Laws or a separate class and cannot be equated with the other universities and secondly that the statute in question has a nexus with the objects sought to be achieved, meaning thereby; that persons having consistently good academic record is to secure highly qualified persons as Lecturers in the Universities and possess consistently good academic record.

13. No doubt this court has always been reluctant to interfere into the selection process of these bodies like Selection Committees and similarly the intervention of the Chancellor into the selection made by the Selection Committee, which also consist of experts has never been appreciated, but where the Selection Committee acts contrary to the statute and appoints a person who is not possessed of consistently good academic record, such an intervention can be made either by the Chancellor or by the Court. Hence, it cannot be said that either the Chancellor has substituted his own views, in place of a Selection Committee. The Chancellor in the present case has not substituted his own views in place of the Selection Committee. But as the recommendation of the Selection Committee travelled against or beyond the scope and ambit of the statute, the Chancellor was perfectly justified in setting aside the recommendations of the Selection Committee as it was against the statute. The last submission that persons similarly situated, meaning thereby; obtaining lessor qualification and equal qualification are working in the University can not be said to be a valid argument, because one wrong cannot justify another wrong.

14. In view of what has been stated, hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. Petition Dismissed.