Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 360 (RAJ)

M. M. Gehlot v. JNV University

2006-02-03

MANAK MOHTA

body2006
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-The petitioner is a member of teaching faculty of the JNV University, Jodhpur for last more than 37 years. He claims to have earned wide spread acclaim amongst the academicians as a person of high integrity and uprightness apart from recognition as a reputed teacher. Presently he is Head of Department of English. In the instant petition he has voiced grievance against the arbitrary functioning of the third respondent Dr.(Smt.) Naseem Bhatia, Vice Chancellor, JNV University, Jodhpur, whereby she has usurped the powers vested in the statutory committees. It is alleged that she has been exercising the power for appointment of favourite examiners as paper setters so as to have deep influence over the examination system and to benefit a particular class of teachers indulged heavily in trade of education popularly known as tuition in the present times. 2. It is averred that in terms of Section 14(7) of the Jodhpur University Act, 1962 and Rule 9-C(4) he presides over the departmental council being the Head of the Department of English. It is for the departmental council to make a recommendation to the examination committee a panel of examiners. Under Statute 12(8) an examiner is to be appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the advice of the examination committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, Dean of the Faculty concerned and the Convener of the committees of Courses and Studies concerned, and two teachers to be appointed by rotation every year according to the seniority. In terms of Statute 12(1) the Vice Chancellor constituted the examination committee for Examination of year 2005 as follows:- (1) Vice Chancellor (2) Dean of the Faculty (3) Convener of the Committees of the Courses and studies(petitioner) (4) Mrs. ‘X’ (5) Mr. ‘Y’ (In order to maintain the secrecy, we have not referred to the name of the examiners at place (4) & (5). We shall be referring them as Mrs. ‘X’ and Mr.‘Y’). 3. The petitioner has placed on record the notifications for the meetings of the committee dated 110.2004, 210.2004 and 111.2004. It is averred that no decision was taken for appointment of examiners in none of the meetings. But to his surprise he came to know about the appointment of examiners in English Department when he received a letter dated 21.01.2005 whereby he was appointed as one of the paper setters. It is averred that no decision was taken for appointment of examiners in none of the meetings. But to his surprise he came to know about the appointment of examiners in English Department when he received a letter dated 21.01.2005 whereby he was appointed as one of the paper setters. The petitioner on his own saying, stated that he could not have been appointed as a paper setter for the particular paper referred in the letter dated 21.01.2005. On the attention being invited the letter of appointment was withdrawn. However, the petitioner agitated as to how the paper setters could be appointed in his absence as he was the member of the examination committee as per notification dated 111.2004. He raised voice in this regard before the Vice Chancellor and thereafter before the Chancellor. Having failed before both the authorities, he has approached to this Court seeking following directions:- “(A) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to confirm to the statutory provisions for appointing the examiners and paper setters as approved by the examination committee. (B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to bring the complete record of the case before the Honble High Court which is pertaining to the panels which have been approved by the competent authorities and the variations which have been adopted by the respondent no.3. (C) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, a complete enquiry by competent authorities may be conducted regarding the manipulation and flouting of rules pertaining to the examination system. (D) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to ensure the secrecy and credibility of the examination system by taking appropriate steps including imposing of restrictions upon private tuitions of the same faculty. (E) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent university may kindly be directed to appoint the paper setters/examiners only in accordance with the panel approved by the statutory authorities i.e. The examination committee. (F) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (G) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 4. (F) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (G) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed supported by the affidavit of Shri Rajendra Singh, Section Officer, JNV University, Jodhpur. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has raised individual grievance and as such it is not a matter of public interest. A counter allegation has been made to the effect that the entire purpose of the petitioner of filing the writ petition is to sabotage the secrecy and confidentiality being maintained by the respondent university in the matter of appointment of examiners and paper setters. The entire purpose of the petitioner is to find out the names of the examiners and paper setters finally appointed by the Vice Chancellor in terms of Statute 12 in order to make personal gains and to influence the examination system. It is further averred that Vice Chancellor has received numerous complaints against the petitioner from the students community pursuing their studies in M.A.(English) and also received complaints from the parents of the students. It is also averred that the petitioner has indulged in unfair practices including pressurizing the students for taking tuition from him. On the merit of the case, it is stated that under the scheme of the Act the Vice Chancellor under Section 12(1) is the principal executive and an academic officer of the University and under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 the Vice Chancellor has been given power to exercise general control over the affairs of the university. Under Statute 9C(1) it has been provided that, “Each department shall have a Departmental Council. Under Statute 9C(1) it has been provided that, “Each department shall have a Departmental Council. The Departmental Council shall be an authority of the university in terms of Clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur Act, 1962.” Sub-clause (5)(iii) of Statute 9C provides that, “The Departmental Council shall approve and recommend to the Examination Committee a panel of examiners for appointment as examiners in the university.” It further envisages that, “Ordinarily no person will be appointed as an examiner in the university unless his name is approved and included in the panel of examiners by the Departmental Council.” The Statute-12 provides that, “In pursuant of Section 12(8) of the Act, the following powers shall also be exercised by the Vice Chancellor:- (i) the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint examiners on the advice of an Examination Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of the faculty concerned and the convener of Committees of Courses and Studies concerned; and two teachers to be appointed by rotation every year according to seniority. Moderators will be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor.” Thus, every department has a Departmental Council and Examination Committee to appoint examiners only from the panel recommended and approved by the Departmental Council. By virtue of Statute 12(8) Vice Chancellor is the appointing authority in the matter of appointment of examiners, of course on the advice of Examination Committee consisting of Dean of the faculty, Head of the Department and two rotational members. It is further stated that there is no duty cast on the Vice Chancellor to make the file relating to appointment of examiners and the paper setters to the Convener of the Committee of Courses & Studies or to any member of the examination committee. In a rejoinder petitioner has refuted the allegations being false and fabricated. It is also stated that he was not interested in seeing the file to know the name of examiners and paper setters, but to refresh the panel of examiners recommended by Departmental Council headed by himself , for making recommendation in Examination Committee as paper setters/examiners. 5. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made, this Court by order dated 30th March, 2005 directed the Standing Counsel for the JNV University, Jodhpur Shri D.C.Sharma to produce the relevant file for the verification of the allegations. 5. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made, this Court by order dated 30th March, 2005 directed the Standing Counsel for the JNV University, Jodhpur Shri D.C.Sharma to produce the relevant file for the verification of the allegations. Initially the university adopted an evasive attitude for the production of the file, later on Shri G.R.Bagaria,Registrar, JNV University, Jodhpur appeared and made a statement that the file is not available in the secrecy section. Later on he filed an affidavit stating inter alia that the record pertaining to the panel of appointment of examiners in English Department of JNV University, Jodhpur is in the custody of the Vice Chancellor. Ultimately the file was produced on 04.04.2005 from the possession of the Vice Chancellor. 6. When the matter came up for hearing on 07.04.2005 on perusal of the file it was felt necessary to take assistance from the person dealing with the matter. It was stated by the learned Counsel for the university that such files are being maintained and remains in the custody of one Mr.Abdul Raheem, Assistant in Secrecy Branch. We have perused the relevant file with the assistance of Shri Abdul Raheem. During perusal of the file certain informations revealed by Mr.Abdul Raheem, it was considered necessary to record his statement on oath. In all fairness this course was not objected by Counsel for either of the parties. Accordingly the statement of Mr.Abdul Raheem was recorded on 07.04.2005 itself . From perusal of the file it appears that in the first meeting of the Examination Committee for appointment of examiners for department of English there was difference of opinion. Out of four members two of them i.e. The Head of the Department and the Dean of the faculty submitted a panel of examiners and two other members i.e. Mrs.`X and Mr.`Y prepared and signed another set of panel of examiners. Thus, two sets of panel of examiners signed by 2-2 members for the department of English were placed before the Vice Chancellor. The Vice chancellor ordered as follows:- “Both the panel consists of committee members and hence it is the recommendation of the committee as a whole which is being considered. Sd/-(Naseem Bhatia) 11.04” It further appears that the Office reported that the petitioner wanted to look into the file to see the names of the examiners from the panel recommended by the Departmental Council. Sd/-(Naseem Bhatia) 11.04” It further appears that the Office reported that the petitioner wanted to look into the file to see the names of the examiners from the panel recommended by the Departmental Council. On consideration of the matter the Vice Chancellor ordered on 07.02.2005 as follows:- “Sending the secrecy file will not be possible. We may ask for the names of paper setters from the other two committee members viz. Mrs.`X and Mr.`Y.” 7. There is nothing on record to show that the Examination Committee after 07.02.2005 met for appointment of the examiners. There is nothing to show if Mrs.`X and Mr. ‘Y’ were asked to give the names of the paper setters in pursuance of the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 07.02.2005. Under the Statute 12(8) an examiner could be appointed by the Vice Chancellor on the advice of the Examination Committee consisting of the members already indicated. Therefore, the Vice Chancellor was to act on the advice of the Examination Committee. The course adopted by her to obtain the names of the paper setters from other committee members i.e. Mrs. ‘X’ and Mr. ‘Y’ is contrary to the provisions of the Statute 12(8). Be that as it may there is nothing on record even to show that in pursuance of the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 7.2.2005 any letter was addressed to Mrs.`X and Mr.`Y to send the names of the paper setters. There is also no material to show that in fact Mrs.`X and Mr.`Y sent the names of the paper setters. The sheets at Page 94,95,96 & 97 bears the signatures of the Vice Chancellor and the two other members viz Mrs.`X and Mr.`Y appointing the paper setters. The sheets do not indicate the date on which the said three persons put their signatures. However, all the sheets bears the code number of the examiners and date of dispatch i.e. 17.2. against the name of the examiners indicating that the letters were dispatched to them informing that they have been appointed paper setters for the paper mentioned therein. It is admitted by Mr.Abdul Reheem that decisions for appointment of the examiners/paper setters were not taken in the meeting. He further stated that the entire process of appointment of examiners was complete before 15.02.2005. Even the programme of dispatching the letters to the examiners was complete by 15th February. It is admitted by Mr.Abdul Reheem that decisions for appointment of the examiners/paper setters were not taken in the meeting. He further stated that the entire process of appointment of examiners was complete before 15.02.2005. Even the programme of dispatching the letters to the examiners was complete by 15th February. The file was handed over by him to the Vice Chancellor herself . The file was not received back from the Vice Chancellor. In his own words, ^^15 Qjojh ds ckn ds i=koyh vaxzsth foHkkx dh okbZlpkalyj ds dk;kZy; esa jghA oh-lh- vkWfQl esa QkbZy eSaus ohlh esMe dks nh FkhA 15 Qjojh rd fpfV;ka Hkstus dk izksxzke iwjk gks pqdk Fkk ijh{kd dksA 15 Qjojh ds ckn ohlh esMe ds ikl ls esjs ikl QkbZy okfil ugha vkbZA** Significantly the sheets at Page No.94,95,96 & 97 bears the date of dispatch as 17.2. He has admitted that the date of dispatch is 17.2. In his own words, ^^bl ij ijh{kd izFke&izFke ijh{kd ds uke ds vkxs , 397@17&2 ejss }kjk fyf[kr gSA , 397 ijh{kd dk dksM ua\ gSA 17&2 fMLisp fd;k FkkA** He also stated that the sheets at Page No.94,95,96 & 97 bears the signatures of the Vice Chancellor and two other members of the Examination Committee, but does not bear the signatures of the other members of the Committee i.e. Head of the Department Mr.Gehlot and the Dean of the faculty. He also stated that for taking the decision the meeting of the Examination Committee was not at all convened. In his own words, ^^ist la- 94] 95] 96] 97-------------------------ds ijh{kdksqMe o nksa dh fu;qfDr dh fyLV gSaA bl ij ohlh es vU; lnL;ksa ds gLrk{kj bu lHkh ij gSA vaxszth ds gsM xgyksr o Mhu ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g tks fu.kZ; fy; sx; s bl ckjs esa mlesa ijh{kk desVh dh dksbZ fefVax ugha gqbZA** (In order to maintain secrecy we have kept this place blank not showing the name of Paper) He further stated that Page No. 94,95,96 & 97 were placed in the file after obtaining the signatures of the Vice Chancellor and both the members after 15th February. In his own words, ^^ckn easdgk izi= i`"B la- 94] 95] 96] 97] 15 Qjojh ds ckn ohlh esMe o nksuksa lnL;kas ls gLrk{kj djokdj ckn esa QkbZy esa MkysA** 8. In his own words, ^^ckn easdgk izi= i`"B la- 94] 95] 96] 97] 15 Qjojh ds ckn ohlh esMe o nksuksa lnL;kas ls gLrk{kj djokdj ckn esa QkbZy esa MkysA** 8. The proceedings show that the decision of appointment of the examiners was not taken in a meeting. Even if there was difference of opinion amongst the members of the committee, the Vice Chancellor could have taken the lead and formed her own opinion considering the views of other members of the committee. A proceeding in that regard could have been drawn, but she could not have totally excluded the two other members, no less than the Dean and the Head of the Department. A transpiracy is expected even in matter of secrecy. The course adopted by Dr.( Smt.) Naseem Bhatia in the matter of appointment of the examiners excluding the Dean and Head of the Department, taking out the file from Secrecy Cell in subtle manner and preparing undated sheets of examiners with help of two rotational members(comparatively junior), not only destroys the very sanctity of the scheme of appointment of examiners/ paper setters, but also brings the entire functioning of high public office of Vice-Chancellor under cloud. 9. There are two more alarming features which have come to our notice. A just look at Page 95 of the concern file shows that the name of the examiners at S.No.2 has been mutilated in such a brutal manner that no body may read the original writing (name of original examiner) and substituted the name of none else but the rotational member of the committee namely Mrs.`X. After mutilation Mrs.`X has put her initials. The sheet bears the signatures of the Vice Chancellor, Mrs.`X and Mr.`Y. The known method of correcting the error, if any, or even a change of honest opinion is by way of recording proceedings in that regard. To the worst writing may be struck off and may be substituted. Mutilation in a official record by a public servant is nothing but a fabrication constituting an offence. 10. There is, still, another aspect which brings the entire proceedings of appointment of examiners/paper setters under cloud. As already stated, this Court by order dated 30.03.2005 asked the university to produce the file. Initially, there was hesitation in producing the file. In fact it was almost “No”. 10. There is, still, another aspect which brings the entire proceedings of appointment of examiners/paper setters under cloud. As already stated, this Court by order dated 30.03.2005 asked the university to produce the file. Initially, there was hesitation in producing the file. In fact it was almost “No”. Only after threat of issuing of search warrant, the Registrar of University, against the wishes of the person concern made an honest statement to the effect that the file was lying with the Vice Chancellor. Ultimately, after the gap of 4 days the file was produced from the custody of the Vice Chancellor, with an appended separate Note-Sheet on the top, justifying the custody, which reads as follows:- “Mr.M.M.Gehlot, Head, Department of English has been visiting Secrecy Branch very frequently and also asking on the telephone for the supply of the Secrecy File of Department of English. I brought this matter to the notice of the Honble Vice Chancellor who, in view of the confidential nature of the file, asked the Secrecy Branch to keep this file in the Office of the Vice Chancellor. Hence, the said file is being kept in the Office of the Honble Vice Chancellor. Sd/- (Abdul Raheem) 15/2/2005 Approved. Sd/-(Naseem Bhatia) 12.2005” It appears that while preparing the said note sheet particularly putting the date 15.02.2005, in hurry, the memory of the person concerned was lost to the fact that sheets at Pages 94,95,96 & 97 bears the actual date of dispatch i.e. 17.02.2005. Thus, the file remained with him atleast upto 17.02.2005. When Mr.Abdul Raheem was confronted with the situation he was perplexed and stated that the sheets at Page No.94,95,96 & 97 were placed in the file after obtaining the signatures of the Vice Chancellor and the two members after 15th February. In this regard the petitioner filed an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating inter alia that there is a clear evidence of fabrication of the note sheet dated 15.02.2005 as a false evidence for the purpose of being used in judicial proceedings, as such appropriate directions may be given for the prosecution of the Vice-Chancellor Dr.Naseem Bhatia. On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that as far as Abdul Raheem is concerned, he appears to be honest and straight forward person. At some stage, he might have acted under the influence of his superiors. On careful consideration of the matter, we are of the view that as far as Abdul Raheem is concerned, he appears to be honest and straight forward person. At some stage, he might have acted under the influence of his superiors. The happenings are unfortunate. Less said, the better, it is. We do not consider expedient in the interest of justice to proceed under Section 340 CrPC. 11. From the above discussion, it emerges that the functioning of Dr.(Smt.)Naseem Bhatia, Vice Chancellor, JNV University, Jodhpur is autocratic in disregard to rule of law. The exclusion of the two members of the committee in subtle way and then to make appointment of examiners with the help of two junior rotational members is an incriminating circumstance to draw an inference about the way of her functioning. The another significant aspect is mutilation of writings. Last but not the least the suspicious manner in which the file was produced before this Court and fabrication of the note-sheet dated 15.02.2005. All these circumstances taken together does lead to a tentative inference that there is substance in the allegation of the petitioner that the third respondent Dr. Naseem Bhatia, Vice Chancellor has usurped the powers vested in the statutory committees with a view to appoint favourite examiners so as to have deep influence over the examination system and to benefit a particular class of teachers. Without further probe, at this stage, it is not possible to draw an inference that this was being done to help such teachers indulged in the trade of education popularly known as tuition. It may be stated that third respondent Dr.Naseem Bhatia who is a party by name has not chosen to refute the allegations made in the writ petition against her by filing a counter affidavit. It is reported that whatever has been noticed in the instant writ petition is only tip of the ice burg. While raising the preliminary objection respondent has made similar counter allegations against the petitioner, of indulging in trade of Education. The allegations and counter allegations, leads to the inference that there is some thing seriously wrong in the examination system. The petitioner is also part of the same system. Fact remains that issue involves of high public importance affecting the career of thousand of students. The loopholes in the secrecy has discredited the entire examination system. The allegations and counter allegations, leads to the inference that there is some thing seriously wrong in the examination system. The petitioner is also part of the same system. Fact remains that issue involves of high public importance affecting the career of thousand of students. The loopholes in the secrecy has discredited the entire examination system. It is submitted that, it is high time to study the secrecy part of the examination system prevailing in all universities of the State in depth and detail and make it credit-worthy. It is also stated that direction be given to take effective steps to eradicate the evil of tuition. 12. In this background we are of the view that to ensure the creditability of the examination system not only in JNV University, Jodhpur but all the other major universities in the State of Rajasthan, a study in that regard to be undertaken by setting up a committee. During deliberation in the Court consensus is arrived on the name of Shri S.S.Tak Former Member, Rajasthan Public Service Commission to head the Committee. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of in the manner, as follows:- .(1) The State of Rajasthan is directed to set up a committee consisting of Shri S.S.Tak,Former Member, R.P.S.C. and Shri G.R.Bagaria,R.A.S. Registrar, JNV University, Jodhpur as a Member Secretary to study the examination system of the selected major universities in the State of Rajasthan and make specific recommendations as to the ways and means, ensuring the secrecy and creditability of examination system. .(2) The Committee shall also make recommendations as to the ways and means to curb the evil of private tuition or any other method whereby the officers,teachers or any other staff of the university are polluting the system for unwarranted considerations. .(3) The State Government shall issue the notification in this regard latest by 15.02.2006. During this period effective steps shall be taken to provide infra-structure to the committee and to make the same functional. .(4) Thecommittee shall submit its report to this Court within a period of three months from the date of the notification, if necessary for justified reasons the tenure of the committee may be extended by this Court. .(5) Shri S.S.Tak, Former Member, R.P.S.C. Shall be entitled to remuneration as he was last drawing as a Member of the R.P.S.C. Minus Pension. .(5) Shri S.S.Tak, Former Member, R.P.S.C. Shall be entitled to remuneration as he was last drawing as a Member of the R.P.S.C. Minus Pension. He will also be entitled to privileges and other benefits drawn by him in his capacity as Member, R.P.S.C. .(6) Shri G.R.Bagaria, Registrar, JNV University, Jodhpur will be paid additional remuneration at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month. .(7) As and when the committee is required to go out for inspection and deliberation in connection with the subject matter, they will be entitled to T.A., D.A. and other facilities as per their entitlement. .(8) The Head Quarter of the committee shall be at Jodhpur. (9) The State will ensure that adequate infra-structure is provided to the Committee. The J .N.V. University, Jodhpur shall make sport arrangement without delay for providing infra-structure to the committee. .(10) The expenses of the committee shall be borne by the State of Rajasthan. .(11) All the concern universities are directed to extend their full support to the Committee. .(12) The Principal Secretary, Higher Education will ensure the compliance of the order of this Court.