Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1099 (ALL)

ISRAR KHAN v. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH

2014-04-04

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, RAJES KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Upadhyay appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, and Shri Terath Raj holding brief of Shri S.S. Singh for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner has been appointed as a Scientific Officer in the Department of Physics, Aligarh Muslim University, with effect from 3.2.1997. It is claimed that he is M.Sc. in Physics and also having Ph.D degree in Physics and is fully qualified for the post of Lecturer in the University. It is contended that in a meeting held on 31.5.1978, the faculty of science has recommended to the Academic Council of the University for the creation of one post of Reader and one post of Lecturer in the Aligarh University in the Department of Physics of University in place of existing posts Senior Scientific Officer and Scientific Officer respectively. The said recommendation was considered and approved by the Academic Council of the University on 12.3.1979. The Executive Council of the University considered and approved the said recommendation of the Faculty of Science. 3. The matter has been referred to the UGC, for final decision. The UGC vide order/letter dated 11.3.2008 addressed to Registrar University, Aligarh, has rejected the recommendation of the University for the conversion of the post of Scientific Officer into Lecturer. It has further been observed that the candidate may apply for the post through advertisement as per the procedure adopted by the University. The said letter of refusal dated 11.3.2008 is annexed as Annexure 3 in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is teaching the students and, therefore, falls within the purview of ‘teacher’ as defined under Section 2-K of the Aligarh Muslim University Act and as that he possesses the qualification of a lecturer and, therefore, is entitled to be designated as a lecturer. He submitted that the UGC has the power to re-designate the post and exercising the said power, in case the Department of Botony the post of Senior Nematologist has been re-designated as the post of ‘Reader’. He further submitted that in number of other cases in different Universities such conversion was made by the UGC through such re-designations. A number of cases have been mentioned in the rejoinder-affidavit. 5. He further submitted that in number of other cases in different Universities such conversion was made by the UGC through such re-designations. A number of cases have been mentioned in the rejoinder-affidavit. 5. On these facts and situation, he submitted that the UGC cannot adopt the policy of the selectivity and cannot reject the claim in an arbitrary manner. 6. Sri Ritvik Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the UGC submitted that the petitioner has been appointed against the post of Scientific Officer, Department of Physics by adopting proper procedure. The posts of Scientific Officer, Professor, Reader and Lecturer are separate posts. Under the statute, there is no provision under which the petitioner, who was appointed as a Scientific Officer can legally claim for the conversion of his post from Scientific Post to the Lecturer. The petitioner has no legal or statutory right for such claim. The Department of the University can only make a recommendation for such conversion and in making such recommendation to the UGC, the petitioner does not come in picture and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner raising such claim, is not maintainable as he has no legal right to raise such claim in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Scientific Officer in the Department of Physics of the University and is working on the said post. He has not been appointed as a lecturer. He may have possessed the qualification of a lecturer, but for that reason alone cannot claim the post of lecturer, being not appointed on the said post. 9. Under the statute, there has been no right, given to the petitioner to claim that he may be re-designated as a lecturer or any post of lecturer be created in place of Scientific Officer in the Department of Physics. In the absence of any legal right, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such claim is not maintainable. We are further of the view that it is the matter of policy whether to convert the posts of Senior Scientific Officer or Scientific Officer into Lecturer, and in such a policy matter this Court cannot interfere. We are further of the view that it is the matter of policy whether to convert the posts of Senior Scientific Officer or Scientific Officer into Lecturer, and in such a policy matter this Court cannot interfere. Whether in some other Department or in other University, the some post has been re-designated is wholly irrelevant so far as the petitioners’ right and the claim is concerned. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and, is dismissed.