KM. NEELIMA MISRA versus DR. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND ORS.

KM. NEELIMA MISRA versus DR. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL AND ORS.

The Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, to decide on appointments where the Executive Council disagrees with the Selection Committee, is administrative, not quasi-judicial. There is no statutory right or requirement for aggrieved candidates to make representations at this stage, and principles of natural justice do not apply. Courts should not interfere with expert academic selection in absence of mala fides or statutory violation.

Parties
Appellant: Km. Neelima Misra; Respondent: Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Quashing Chancellor's Appointment Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
University Appointments, Administrative Powers, Natural Justice, Article 14 Equality, Judicial Review of Academic Selection
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Education Law University Appointments Administrative Powers Natural Justice Article 14 Equality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Km. Neelima Misra

Appellant

Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Quashing Chancellor's Appointment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature of Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973
  2. 2 Requirement of natural justice in Chancellor's decision
  3. 3 Right of candidates to make representation to Executive Council or Chancellor against Selection Committee's recommendation

Ratio Decidendi

The Chancellor's power under Section 31(8)(a) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, to decide on appointments where the Executive Council disagrees with the Selection Committee, is administrative, not quasi-judicial. There is no statutory right or requirement for aggrieved candidates to make representations at this stage, and principles of natural justice do not apply. Courts should not interfere with expert academic selection in absence of mala fides or statutory violation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • Order reverting appellant to substantive post of Lecturer is set aside.