AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.
W.P. No. 5775 of 2008
Heard both sides and perused the records.
The prayer of the writ petitioner is to set aside the order dated 26.06.2008 wherein by which the second respondent was appointed as a faculty in-charge of the faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation for a period of two years by the first respondent University.
The writ petition was admitted on 03.07.2008 and an interim-order of stay was granted on the same day in M.P. MD. (No). 1 of 2008. A vacate stay application was filed dated 18.07.2008 in M.P.(MD). No. 2 of 2008. Since according to the petitioner the said order was disobeyed, contempt petition No. 258 of 2008 was filed.
On 18.07.2008, notice was ordered on the contempt application. When the matter came up on 18.08.2008, the main writ petition was directed to be posted along with the contempt application and accordingly, they were posted together.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed M.P.(MD) No. 4 of 2008 seeking to amend the main writ prayer, accordingly by an order dated 28.08.2008, the amendment petition was ordered.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Registrar of the first respondent University dated 18.07.2008, it was stated that the writ petitioner is a Lecturer (selection grade) and he cannot be appointed as a Faculty in-charge and authorised to exercise the powers of the Dean. It was also stated that he was not qualified to be appointed as a Dean.
When the writ petitioner was re-designated as a Lecturer (Selection Grade), he questioned the same in a writ petition before the Principal Bench. The said writ petition was allowed On 28.11.2006. The University, then moved the Division Bench in W.A. 237 of 2007 and has also obtained a stay. Therefore, by virtue of the interim-order, the petitioner was allowed to continue as a Lecturer (Selection Grade) and he cannot be a Reader.
On 26.06.2008, the second respondent was appointed as a Faculty in-charge of the Faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation for a period of two years. Both the petitioner and the second respondent belong to the same Faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation of the University.
The resolution of the Syndicate of the University dated 12.06.2008 was approved by the Chairman of the Interim Administrative Committee, since the post of Vice Chancellor was lying vacant. It is also stated that there are six faculties in the University. Of these six faculties, four faculties have several departments and each department is headed by an Head of the Department. The Heads of Department, Professors and the Dean of Faculty are appointed by the Syndicate. But the Faculty of Rural and Health Sanitation and the Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry they are single department Faculties and therefore, no Heads of Departments are being appointed. In fact, the Faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation only Faculty in charge can be appointed since there is no professor in that department. Since there is no professor there is no Head of the Department also can be made.
It is also submitted that the Dean of each Faculty is appointed by the Syndicate from among the Professors of Heads of Departments in the Faculty for a period of three years and such persons appointed are eligible for re-appointment. In case there is no professor or Head of Department of Faculty, the Vice Chancellor shall authorise one of the members of the Faculty, who exercise the powers of the Dean of the Faculty.
In the case of Faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation there is no Professor and hence there is no Head of Department. It being a single teaching department, the Vice-Chancellor is the competent authority to appoint the Faculty in-charge. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is averred as follows:
...In the present, the post of the Vice-Chancellor is vacant. The Interim Administrative Committee formed by the Syndicate is performing the functions of the Vice Chancellor. I respectfully submit that since the Vice-Chancellor post is vacant, the Syndicate, which is the competent authority has passed a resolution in its meeting on 12.06.2008 to appoint the second respondent as Faculty in charge of the Faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation of the University. I submit that the petitioner is neither a Professor nor a Head of Department but he was appointed as Faculty in-charge for the Faculty of Rural Health and Sanitation. I submit that both the writ petitioner and the second respondent are equal in cadre namely Lecturer (Selection Grade). Hence, the authorisation of the second respondent to act as Faculty in charge is perfectly valid and legal.
The counter affidavit filed by the second respondent dated 17.07.2008 more or less was on similar lines. But it was further added that the second respondent is also a Lecturer (Selection Grade) like the petitioner. He has put in 24 years of service in the University besides an M.B.B.S Degree like the petitioner, he has also has an M.Sc. in applied Nutrition.
In the affidavit filed in support of the petition for amendment of the prayer by the petitioner, it is stated that the Syndicate resolution dated 12.06.2008 not only resolved to appoint the second respondent for two years as Faculty in-charge but also after the period of two years they had resolved to appoint one Dr. V. Anuradha, Reader in Entomology for the next two years on completion of the term by the second respondent. It was further stated that the in-charge of the post of Dean can be done only by the Vice Chancellor and not by the Syndicate.
The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. There is no vested right for the petitioner to get appointed as an in-charge of the Faculty in the absence of any statute framed by the University in his favour. The rules and regulations of the University includes a power to appoint members of teaching staff and constitute faculties vests on the syndicate.
Further as per the Rules it is stated that the Dean of each Faculty shall be appointed by the Faculties from among the faculty and Head of the Departments. When there is no professor or Head of the Department, the Vice Chancellor is empowered to authorise one of the members of the Faculty to exercise the power of the Dean of Faculty. If the office of the Dean is vacant, then the duty of the office shall be performed by such person as the Vice Chancellor may appoint.
In the present case, it is admittedly the post of Vice Chancellor is vacant and therefore, on the basis of the Interim Administration Committee''s decision, the second respondent was made as an Faculty in-charge. Further, it is not an regular appointment. As rightly contended by the respondent University though the petitioner claims to be receiving salary in the scale of Reader by virtue of the Carrier Promotion Scheme that will not give the petitioner an edge over the second respondent to claim seniority.
The question of seniority between the merit promotee and promotees under the Career Promotion Scheme came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Dr. Rashmi Srivastava v. Vikram University and Ors. reported in AIR 1975 SC 1694. It is relevant to refer to the passage found in paragraph 47 of the decision, which reads as follows:
The question then remains as to how his seniority has to be reckoned as a merit promotee even though his an ex cadre Reader or Professor. The answer is obvious. Amongst person forming the same class to which he belongs, namely, merit promotee Readers or Professors, their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of continuous officiation as such merit promotees. Such a separate seniority list of merit promotee Readers and Professors has to be prepared and acted upon for purposes other than seniority and promotion in and to the posts available to those in the cadre.
Therefore, in the light of the above, the challenge made by the petitioner to the impugned resolution of the Syndicate is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly the writ petition will stand dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.
Cont.P.(MD). No. 258 of 2008:
In reply to the Contempt Petition, it is stated that the respondent University was seeking legal advice and also contemplating filing a vacate stay application. The petitioner when the impugned notice was served on him had gone on leave.
In the light of the explanation offered by the respondent Registrar, this Court is not inclined proceed with the contempt proceedings. Further, the main writ petition itself has been decided against the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition stands dismissed.