Lalit Kumar Jha Vs North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) and Others

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

141 paragraphs · 8,062 words

T. Nandakumar Singh, J—These two writ petitions filed by the same writ petitioner basing on the same fact for the same subject matter against the same respondents were jointly heard for being disposed of by a common judgment and order. In order to avoid repetition of facts, for convenience, the fact of the case leading to the filing of the WP(C) No. 174/2014 is briefly noted.

Heard Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. K. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-university. The relief sought for in WP(C) No. 174/2014 read as follows:

"That the instant Petition has been filed bona fide for the ends of justice.

In the premises and circumstances stated herein above, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to:-

i) Admit this Writ Petition;

ii) Call for the Records;

iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to Show cause or Causes as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of the like nature be not issued quashing and setting aside 6 (Six) Nos. of Promotions of the non-eligible Professors so far effected without following the provisions of law and prescribed procedure as laid down under the UGC Regulation 2010 pursuant to Executive Council meeting held on 17th December 2012 and on 28th March 2013;

AND

iv) After cause or causes being shown and after hearing the parties your Lordship would further be pleased to Quash and set aside all the promotion of six non eligible Professors from stage 5 to stage 6 (HAG) which were illegally approved vide E.C. Resolution dated 17th December 2012 and 28th March 2013;

v) Pass necessary further order promoting the Petitioner with effect from 31/12/2008 and restoring his seniority whose candidature had been fraudulently rejected to favour junior Professors viz.: Respondent No. 13, 14, & 15.

vi) Issue direction for payment of cost and compensation to the humble Petitioner for mental harassment and loss of prestige in the academic fraternity caused to the petitioner due to fraudulent act of Respondent No. 1 & Respondent No. 11 as due and as may be admissible,

AND/OR

Pass such other order or orders as may be deem fit and proper by this Hon''ble High Court and for which act of your kindness the Petitioner shall remain ever grateful."

The relief sought for in WP(C) No. 62/2013 read as follows:

"That the instant Petition has been filed bona fide for the ends of justice.

In the premises and circumstances stated herein above, it is most humbly prayed that your lordship would graciously be pleased to:-

i) Admit this Writ Petition;

ii) Call for the Records;

iii) Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to Show cause or Causes as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ of the like nature be not issued, staying all the Promotions of the Professors from Stage 5 to Stage 6 (HAG) initially which are due to be approved on 28th March 2013 and/or subsequently thereafter including the cases which are already approved vide E.C. Resolution No. EC. 153 : 2012 : 6 : 1 dated 17th December 2012 (Annexure-Xl);

iv) Quash/set aside all the promotion of the Professors from stage 5 to stage 6 (HAG) which are already approved vide E.C. Resolution No. E.C. 153 : 2012 : 6 : 1 dated 17th December 2012 (Annexure-) and due to be approved in the ensuing meeting of the Executive Council to be held on 28th March 2013;

v) Issue Directions for examination of the confirmation of the EC Resolution No. E.C. 153 : 2012 : 6 : 1 dated 17th December 2012 (Annexure-);

vi) Issue directions to the Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 for filing their affidavit along with their observations and report in the matter;

vii) Issue directions to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 for constitution of the Expert Committee for de-novo selection procedure for promotion for stage 5 to Stage 6 (HAG)

viii) Issue further directions for ensuring the fresh selection pursuant to the seniority List of the University and for removing other anomalies and protection of the interest of the Petitioner for promotion; and

ix) Issue the direction for payment of cost and compensation to the humble Petitioner and payment as due and as may be admissible;

AND/OR

Pass such other order or orders as may be deem fit and proper by this Hon''ble High Court and for which act of your kindness the Petitioner shall remain ever grateful."

It is stated in WP(C) No. 174/2014 that the respondent No. 10 (Prof. of Physics) and respondent No. 11 (Prof. of Biochemistry) had been irregularly promoted to the professorship of HAG (Higher Academic Grade) without obtaining the required API (Academic Performance Indicator) Score in Category III (Self Assessment) in utter violation of UGC Regulation, 2010. The respondent Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were assessed by the experts of other subjects. The respondent No. 13 (Prof. of Economics, Department of Economics) who is one year, one month and twelve days junior to the writ petitioner had been promoted to the professorship of HAG without obtaining API score in Category III (Self Assessment), in flagrant violation of UGC Regulation 2010. Respondent No. 14 (Prof. in Department of Geography) who is one year, one month and twelve days junior to the writ petitioner had been promoted to the professorship of HAG in utter violation of the provisions of UGC Regulation 2010. It is also further alleged that the respondent No. 15 (Prof. of Physics) who is eight years, one month and twenty six days junior to the writ petitioner was promoted to the professorship of HAG in utter violation of the UGC Regulation 2010.

It is also the further case of the petitioner that a junior professor cannot supersede a senior professor who fulfills all the criteria of eligibility as per UGC Regulation 2010 while promoting to the professorship of HAG (Stage-6) and Clause 6.4.10 states "....selection should be conducted by the university by receiving duly filled PBAS (Performance Based Appraisal System) proformas from eligible Professors based on seniority." The petitioner had joined as a Professor of Forestry in the Department of Forestry, School of Environment Sciences, NEHU on 8th August, 1990 at the then Mizoram Campus, NEHU, Aizawl and he was selected against the sanctioned post under open category as professor and his appointment was duly confirmed by the University. Subsequently, NEHU, Mizoram was granted status of a Central University and consequent upon exercise of option all the faculties who opted for Parent University were considered to be on deputation in Mizoram University till final posting in NEHU.

Petitioner was transferred from erstwhile NEHU, Mizoram Campus i.e. Mizoram University and temporarily attached to Department of Rural Development and Agril. Production (RDAP) School of Human Environment Sciences, NEHU and vide letter No. F.17.119/ESTT-II/90-6524 dated 5th January, 2004 joined Department of RDAP, NEHU Tura on 23-01-2004. Subsequently, petitioner was temporarily attached to NEHU and was finally posted in Centre for Environment (Now Department of Environmental Studies) with effect from 27-02-2006 against a sanctioned post of Professor. The Executive Council transferred/reallocated one sanctioned post of Professor from other department of NEHU to post the petitioner in Department of Environmental Studies and was 4th senior most Professor before the introduction of HAG, where he was superseded by three juniors.

On adoption of UGC Regulation 2010, the respondent No. 1 (NEHU) issued a Notification No. F.5-1/Estt. (B)/2011-224 dated 18th November, 2011 that UGC Regulation 2010 as adopted by NEHU states that Ten percent of the Professors in the University, with a minimum of ten years of teaching and research experience as professor shall be eligible for promotion to the Higher Grade of Professorship (Stage-6), on satisfying the required API (Academic Performance Indicator) score as per Annexure I and II through the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) methodology by a duly constituted Expert Committee and such teachers promoted to the higher grade shall continue to be designated as ''Professor''.

From the pleading of the petitioner, it is clear to the petitioner that for promotion to a higher grade of professor (Stage 6), the duly constituted Expert Committee has to assess the required API score of the professor through PBAS methodology and on the basis of the finding/opinion of the duly Expert Committee, the professors are to be promoted to the higher grade of professorship (Stage 6). The respondent No. 1 (University) vide letter No. F.5.1/Estt-II (B)/2011-2084 dated 23rd July, 2012 had circulated the vacancy/vacancies under HAG (Stage 6) in each School, of 9 vacancies in the University, inter alia, one in the petitioner''s School i.e. Humanities and Environment Sciences and two each in the School of Life Sciences and Physical Sciences, one in the Management and Information Sciences. A copy of the said letter dated 23rd July, 2012 is annexed as Annexure-V to the writ petitioner (i.e. WP(C) No. 174/2014). For convenience the said letter dated 23rd July, 2012 is quoted hereunder:

"North-Eastern Hill University

NEHU Campus, Shillong-793022 (Meghalaya)

F.5-1/Estt-II (B)/2011-2084 Dated the 23rd July, 2012

To,

All Heads of Academic Departments/Centres of Studies,

NEHU, Shillong/Tura Campus, Tura.

Madam/Sir,

In continuation to the guidelines on Career Advancement Scheme forwarded vide letter of even No. 224 dated 18th November 2011, further procedure to be followed for promotion from stage 3 to 4, 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 may kindly be seen at Annexure-''A''.

It may kindly be noted that the teachers who are eligible for promotion from stage 3 to 4, 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 may submit their application through the Dean of School/Head of the Department, as the case may be, within 10th August 2012 to the undersigned. The teachers who have already submitted their application need not submit again.

This may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned.

Yours faithfully Sd/- (T.K. Singha) Deputy Registrar Estt-II

Procedures/Criteria to be followed for HAG

Distribution of HAG vacancies.

In order to verify that the applicant meets the minimum eligibility criteria for HAG, as per norms there shall be preliminary screening of applications. The applications shall be screened by a Committee (school wise) comprising of the following:

Life Sciences: 1. Prof. S.K. Mishra, Director, IQAC

Dean of School concerned

NOTE: If the Dean is an applicant, a professor from the School (based on the seniority) who is not an applicant for HAG shall be the member.

Humanities: 1. Prof. S.K. Mishra, Director, IQAC

Dean of School concerned