Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1926 (RAJ)

Rajni Singh Solanki v. State of Rajasthan

2006-05-29

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment Mohd. Rafiq, J.-The present special appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 10.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner Rajni Singh Solanki (Appellant herein) was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellant challenged the order dated 14.02.2006 (Annexure-19) by which she was replaced Warden of Kasturba (Girls) Hostel, situated in the camps of University of Rajasthan, Jaipur by Dr. (Mrs.) Praveen Sharma, Assistant Professor in the Department of E.A.F.M. 2. The appellant submitted an application to the Chief Warden (Girls), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 10.11.2005 wherein she requested that she be appointed as Warden of the Kasturba (Girls) Hostel, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his order dated 111.2005 appointed the appellant, Dr. Mrs. Rajni Singh Solanki, adhoc Asstt. Professor, Department of English as Warden, Kasturba Girls Hostel, University Campus, Jaipur with immediate effect for a period of one year or till further orders whichever is earlier on usual terms and conditions. A consequential order to this effect was passed by the Additional Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 111.2005 copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-2. 3. A cultural programme was arranged by the appellant for the inmates of the Hostel on 12.2005 which was named as Kasturba Night. A copy of the invitation card of function has been placed on record as Annexure-17. The appellant stated that the said function was organised properly. However, she received a letter on 13.02.2006 (Annexure-18) from V.C. Secretariat in which comments of the appellant were called for on a complaint received from the almost as many as 75 students residing in the hostel. 4. The appellant has stated that she received the aforesaid letter at 3.30 PM whereas the explanation was required to be submitted by her by 3.00 PM. on the same day. The Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 13.02.2006 appointed the Respondent No. 5 Dr. (Mrs.) Praveen Sharma, Assistant Professor, Department of EAFM as Warden of the hostel in place of the appellant vide order dated 14.02.2006 (Annexure-19), which is the order impugned in the writ petition. on the same day. The Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 13.02.2006 appointed the Respondent No. 5 Dr. (Mrs.) Praveen Sharma, Assistant Professor, Department of EAFM as Warden of the hostel in place of the appellant vide order dated 14.02.2006 (Annexure-19), which is the order impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant holding that the petitioner could not show any rule or law by which Warden-ship of the Girls Hostel can be claimed as a right and held that no interference was called for by this Court in the impugned order passed by the respondents. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this present special appeal. 6. Arguments on appeal were heard for some time on 17.05.2006. We requested Mr. R.A. Katta, the learned Counsel who represents the University of Rajasthan to produce relevant rules governing the appointment of Wardens and the matter was fixed for 18.05.2006. When the matter was taken up again on 18.05.2006 we requested Mr. R.A. Katta, the learned Counsel for the University, to produce the relevant record on the next day. Mr. Katta produced the relevant record on 19.05.2006 on which date, the arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. 7. We have carefully perused the record which was produced by the learned Counsel for the University. Record shows that as many as 75 students who were inmates of the hostel submitted a written complaint to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan on 13.02.2006. In the complaint it was stated by the students that the son of the appellant had misbehaved with the students during the function "Kasturba Night" organised on 12.02.2006. When the students made a complaint to the appellant about the incident mis-behaviour of her son with the students, instead of taking any action against him she in turn misbehaved with the students and abused them. The record also contains some photographs of the function. The photographs clearly show the presence of only one boy amongst all other girls. The record also contains clipping of the newspaper reports carried out in the local media about the incident. All these students requested the Vice Chancellor to take action in the matter. The Vice Chancellor marked their complaint to the Chief Warden (Girls) to submit the report on 13.02.2006 itself . The record also contains clipping of the newspaper reports carried out in the local media about the incident. All these students requested the Vice Chancellor to take action in the matter. The Vice Chancellor marked their complaint to the Chief Warden (Girls) to submit the report on 13.02.2006 itself . In the report, the Chief Warden (Girls) stated that the incident reference to which has been made in the complaint submitted by the students had taken place during the function Kasturba Night organised on 12.02.2006. She also stated in her report that the agitated students informed her on phone about the incident at 1.00 A.M. in the mid night. It was further stated in the report that no prior information was given to the Chief Warden or the Chief Proctor or even the D.S.W. about the dignitaries who were invited as guest in the said function. The misbehaviour of the son of the warden with the girls inmates of the hostel deserves to be condemned and depricated. She suggested that it would not be justified to continue the appellant on the post of warden. 8. The said report was submitted to the Vice Chancellor for taking necessary action in the matter. On perusal of the record it appears that the V.C. Secretariat and Chief Proctor office made two phone calls to the appellant, in spite of that she did not meet the Vice Chancellor personally. It was thereupon that on 13.02.2006 a letter was addressed to the appellant by Adm. Secretary to V.C. to submit her comments on the complaint of the students by 3.00 P.M. on the same day which reads as under:- "As desired by the Vice Chancellor I am enclosing herewith a complaint received from the students of your hostel regarding alleged misbehaviour with the students by your son during the Kasturba Night function on 12.02.2006. The Vice Chancellor and the Chief Proctor Office telephoned you twice but you could not make it convenient to meet the V.C. personally. You are requested to submit your comments on the enclosed complaint letter to this office before 3.00 P.M. today." 9. When the appellant failed to respond even to the notice issued to her, the Vice Chancellor vide his letter dated 13.02.2006 appointed one Dr. (Mrs.) Praveen Sharma as Warden of the Kasturba Girls Hostel with immediate effect till further orders on usual terms and conditions vice Mrs. When the appellant failed to respond even to the notice issued to her, the Vice Chancellor vide his letter dated 13.02.2006 appointed one Dr. (Mrs.) Praveen Sharma as Warden of the Kasturba Girls Hostel with immediate effect till further orders on usual terms and conditions vice Mrs. Raini Solanki, the appellant herein. 10. Mrs. Naina Sarraf , the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that according to the terms and conditions of appointment of Warden, her appointment was made for a period of one year as she was entitled to continue in the office as Warden for a period of two years as per the resolution of the Syndicate. It was further argued by her that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner and have not afforded any proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant before passing the impugned order dated 14.02.2006. The impugned order dated 14.02.2006 is stigmatic order and therefore, the respondents were required to comply with the principles of natural justice. It was also argued that the explanation letter was received by the appellant a 3.30 P.M. wherein she was required to submit her explanation by 3.00 P.M. on the same day which in the circumstances was not possible her to submit the same. 11. On the other hand, Mr. R.A. Katta, the learned Counsel for the University of Rajasthan, has argued that the appellant had no legal or vested right to continue as Warden of the Kastrba Girls Hostel particularly, when her son was found to be misbehaving with the girls in the function Kasturba Night organised on 12.02.2006. All the students made a complaint about this incident to the appellant. The appellant rather than taking any action against her son, also misbehaved with the students and manhandled and abused them. Faced with this situation, all the inmates of the hostel submitted a written complaint to the Vice Chancellor of the University who thereupon called for report of the Chief Warden (Girls). The Chief Warden in her report confirmed the factum of incident which took place in the function Kasturba Night organised on 12.02.2006. The decision taken by the Vice Chancellor in appointing Dr. Mrs. Praveen Sharma as Warden in place of the appellant was based on objective considerations. Sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice has been made prior to passing of the impugned order dated 14.02.2006. Mr. The decision taken by the Vice Chancellor in appointing Dr. Mrs. Praveen Sharma as Warden in place of the appellant was based on objective considerations. Sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice has been made prior to passing of the impugned order dated 14.02.2006. Mr. Katta, the learned Counsel for the University further argued that the appellant had no legal right to continue as Warden as she in her capacity as Warden of the hostel was only entitled to get allowance of Rs. 250/-per month and free residential accommodation which facility being attached to the post of Warden, the impugned order in any manner does not effect her service conditions as Assistant Professor, Department of English, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record placed for our perusal. 13. We cannot countenance the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to her before passing the impugned order dated 14.02.2006. Principles of natural justice cannot be reduced to any hard and fast formulae. Their applicability would always depend upon the context and the facts and circumstances of each case, object being to ensure a fair hearing to the person whose rights are going to be affected. 14. It is not even the case of the appellant that no opportunity of hearing was provided to her. Her grievance however is that she was not provided with proper opportunity of hearing in as much as the notice dated 13.02.2007 requiring her to submit explanation at 3.00 P.M. on the same day was received by her at 3.30 P.M. Original records produced by the learned Counsel for the University of Rajasthan however makes it clear that prior to service of notice, the V.C. Secretariat and the Chief Proctor Office telephoned the appellant twice but she could not make convenient to meet the Vice Chancellor personally. It was, therefore, that the notice was served upon her on 13.02.2006 to elicit her comments on the complaints submitted by the students before 3.00 P.M. on the same day. It was, therefore, that the notice was served upon her on 13.02.2006 to elicit her comments on the complaints submitted by the students before 3.00 P.M. on the same day. Prior to service of such notice, the Vice Chancellor called for the comments of the Chief Warden who also confirmed the factum with regard incident of indecent manner in which the appellants son misbehaved with the girl inmates of the hostel during the annual function Kasturba Night held in the night of 12.02.2006. 15. In our view, the appellant as Warden of the hostel was fully responsible for safety and security of its girl inmates. Greatest amount of sanctity has to be attached to the duties of a warden, much less a lady warden of the girls hostel. Safety and dignity of the girl inmates of the hostel have to be given utmost importance and any overtures either by son of the hostel warden or any other person which admits of even the slightest apprehension of outraging modesty of such girl inmates who are put in the care and charge of the University functionaries especially the hostel warden by the parents has to be viewed seriously and dealt with severely. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the appellant. 16. We may in this connection usefully refer to some of the observations made by Supreme Court in the Case of State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.P. Sharma, 1996 (3) SCC 364 . In para 28 of the said Judgment , their lordships of the Honble Supreme Court referred to various previous case laws on the doctrine of principles of natural justice especially its earlier Judgment s in the Case of Managing Director ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 and K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India, 1984 (1) SCC 43 and observed as under:-"The validity of the order has to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice, i.e., whether, all in all, the person concerned did or did not have a fair hearing. It would not be correct - in the light of the above decisions to say that for any and every violation of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating such facet, the order passed is altogether void and ought to be set aside without further enquiry. In our opinion, the approach and test adopted in B. Karunakar should govern all cases where the complaint is not that there was no hearing (no notice, no opportunity and no hearing) but one of not affording a proper hearing (i.e., adequate or a full hearing) or of violation of a procedural rule or requirement governing the enquiry; the complaint should be examined on the touchstone of prejudice as aforesaid" 17. In para 32 of the said Judgment , their lordships further observed as under:-"Justice means justice between both the parties. The interest of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter - productive exercise." 18. In our view, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case where sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant before passing the impugned order. In facts of the present case, it cannot be accepted that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant by the University functionaries. Once when the Vice Chancellor of the University had sufficient material before him, he on due application of mind was quite justified in passing the impugned order. 19. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error of law. The present special appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.