Allahabad HC Reinstates Professors at Lucknow University
The Allahabad High Court reinstated two professors at Lucknow University, overturning a Chancellor's order that annulled their appointments.
In this article
In a significant ruling, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court reinstated two Associate Professors in the Department of Business Administration at Lucknow University on 9 October 2023. The court quashed an order from the Chancellor that had canceled their appointments, stating that specific eligibility qualifications established under Statute 11.03.04(G) of the university’s First Statutes, which are aligned with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010, take precedence over general faculty criteria.
The case involved Dr. Himanshu Mohan and Dr. Sangeeta Sahu, who were selected for their positions after applying in response to Recruitment Notice No. R-45/2015 issued on 10 August 2015. Both candidates were interviewed on 15 January 2016, subsequently approved by the Executive Council, and received their appointment letters on 11 February 2016. They joined their respective positions on 18 February 2016.
An unsuccessful candidate, Dr. Ritu Narang, filed a delayed representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. She argued that since the Department of Business Administration was categorized under the Faculty of Commerce, the applicable criteria were those outlined in Statute 11.03.04(A) coupled with Statute 11.03.01 (General Eligibility Criteria). Dr. Narang contended that Dr. Mohan and Dr. Sahu lacked the necessary qualifications, specifically the proof of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.
On 27 November 2017, the Chancellor accepted Dr. Narang’s objections and annulled the appointments of Dr. Mohan and Dr. Sahu, claiming they did not meet the qualifications. The two professors challenged this cancellation in the High Court.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sandeep Dixit, representing the petitioners, argued that the UGC Regulations, 2010 were incorporated into the First Statutes as Statute 11.03.04(G) under a State Government order dated 3 December 2013. He emphasized that this statute specifically governs appointments in Management and Business Administration, thus overriding general eligibility rules. Dixit noted that both candidates met the qualifications outlined in Statute 11.03.04(G) and that the Selection Committee evaluated them under these specific provisions. He stated that they were not requested to submit documentation regarding doctoral guidance, despite having such qualifications.
Opposing counsel maintained the Chancellor’s position, insisting that because the Department of Business Administration is part of the Faculty of Commerce, the university should apply the general qualifications strictly. They referenced a principle of law that mandates adherence to specific procedural requirements when exercising powers.
The Bench, consisting of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, examined the relevant statutes. They noted that while Statute 11.03.01 specifies general eligibility criteria, the specific provisions of Statute 11.03.04(G) were enacted to implement UGC Regulations, 2010 regarding teaching faculty in Management and Business Administration.
The court determined that Statute 11.03.04(G) is a specific provision, thus prevailing over general criteria. The judges stated, “The term ‘teaching faculty’ refers to teachers appointed for imparting education to students enrolled in courses of Management/Business Administration.” They emphasized that the administrative placement of the Business Administration department within the Faculty of Commerce does not alter the specific eligibility requirements established by the UGC.
The court criticized the Chancellor’s order for contradicting the university’s own selection committee, which had conducted the recruitment process in accordance with Statute 11.03.04(G). The judges concluded that Dr. Mohan and Dr. Sahu could not be penalized for not providing documentation that was never requested by the Selection Committee.
The ruling reinstates both professors and mandates that they be granted all consequential service benefits. The judgement reaffirms the importance of specific regulatory frameworks in academic appointments, particularly in specialized fields such as Business Administration.
