Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 405 (UTT)

Urmila Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-29

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) declare inaction on the part of the University authorities in passing order of regularization in favour of the petitioner despite resolution passed by the Executive Council and the go ahead given by the State Government as unjust and illegal. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 and 3 to regularize petitioner’s services on the post of Assistant Professor (Yogic Science) pursuant to the decision taken by the Executive Council of the University in its 23rd meeting held on 21.09.2015.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner possesses M.A. (Human Consciousness and Yogic Science) Degree from Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidhyalaya, Haridwar. She also possesses Ph.D. Degree in Human Consciousness and Yogic Science from the same University and she is thus eligible for being appointed as Assistant Professor in any University. Her Ph.D. was awarded in accordance with UGC Regulations, 2009. It is her further case that pursuant to the applications invited by the respondent University, petitioner responded. After short listing, she was called for interview; a committee duly constituted interviewed the petitioner and recommended her for appointment for the post of Lecturer (Yoga) and she was appointed by order dated 29.02.2008 by the Registrar; she joined. She relies on a certificate of the Vice Chancellor recommending petitioner’s work and conduct. The Executive Council, in its meeting held on 21.09.2015, considered the claim of the petitioner for regularization and took a decision for regularization. Instead of orders for regularization, it is the further case of the petitioner that the Executive Council referred the matter to the State Government for approval. It is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Council is competent to decide regarding regularization. There is reference to letter of the Vice Chancellor dated 08.12.2015, wherein he is alleged to have strongly recommended the petitioner’s claim. The State Government raised certain queries, which are replied to by the Registrar. The State Government, in letter dated 09.03.2016, is alleged to have admitted the authority of the Vice Chancellor to appoint teachers and to have given direction that the University should take decision as per law. The State Government raised certain queries, which are replied to by the Registrar. The State Government, in letter dated 09.03.2016, is alleged to have admitted the authority of the Vice Chancellor to appoint teachers and to have given direction that the University should take decision as per law. It is stated that by letter dated 12.04.2016, the Registrar has replied that the remaining term of the present Vice Chancellor is less than three months, therefore, the matter was referred to the Government. Petitioner has submitted representations. The complaint is, however, that the University proceeded to supply the vacancies of Assistant Professor (Yogic Science) through open selection pursuant to advertisement issued on 22.04.2015 and three vacancies have been notified. 3. Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State would submit that the Regularisation Rules made by the Government in 2013 will not apply to a person like the petitioner as it is not applicable to the Universities. 4. The only basis for the claim of the petitioner is the decision of the Executive Council. Petitioner has referred to Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This is an Act, under which, the respondent University has been formed admittedly. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides, inter alia, as follows: “21. Powers and duties of Executive Council. (1) The Executive Council shall be the principal executive body of the University and subject to the provisions of this Act, have the following powers, namely— (i) … (ii) … (iii) … (iv) …. (v) … (vi) … (vii) to appoint officers, teachers and other employees of the University and to define their duties and the conditions of their service, and to provide for the filling of temporary casual vacancies in their posts;” 5. But it is also necessary that we take notice of Section 31, which comes under Chapter –VI and deals with appointment and conditions of service of teachers and officers. It, inter alia, provides a detailed procedure of appointment of teachers of the University and of affiliated or associated college. 6. In this case, Executive Council is alleged to have taken the decision to regularize the services of the petitioner. 7. Mr. It, inter alia, provides a detailed procedure of appointment of teachers of the University and of affiliated or associated college. 6. In this case, Executive Council is alleged to have taken the decision to regularize the services of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the University would submit that a decision can be ordered to be taken in the matter relating to regularization. In this regard, we notice that, as even admitted by the petitioner, on the one hand, there is a decision, but we also notice that the University has proceeded to notify vacancies of Assistant Professor (Yogic Science), and he would submit that process is under way. 8. We do not wish to say anything more. In view of what we intend to do, we only dispose of the writ petition by recording the submission of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the University that the Vice Chancellor will take a decision and by directing that the Vice Chancellor will take a decision within one week from today. We only add that the direction is not to regularize the services of the petitioner, but to only consider the matter strictly in accordance with law. The law, which we referred, will include the provisions of the Act also. It is made clear that we have not pronounced on the question as to whether there is power to regularize and this is a question, which must also be gone into by the Vice Chancellor. We leave open all the contentions of the petitioner.