Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1274 (RAJ)

Mata Prasad Sharma v. Jagat Guru Ramanandachary

2017-05-18

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that action of the respondents to curtail the term of petitioner as Head of Department be set aside along with order dated 28.9.2015 (Annexure-5). 2. As perusal of the Annexure-5 reveals that for administrative reasons, charge of Head of Department of Shiksha Shashtra Department was handed over to Dr. Divakar Mishra. Prayer made in the present petition, reads as under:- "It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 28.9.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. The respondent University may further be directed to allow the petitioner to complete his tenure either upto 24.4.2017 or 24.4.2016 and he may be allowed to work continue on the post of HoD in the Department of Shiksha Shashtra of the respondent University with all consequential benefits." 3. A perusal of the prayer reveals that both dates 24.4.2017 and 24.4.2016 have already elapsed and hence, it has been rightly urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 4. Before this Court could dictate the order of the writ petition, having been rendered infructuous, the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the present petition be decided on merits even though this Court has repeatedly stated that the issue raised is only academic and can be decided in another suitable case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner will not budge. Thus, this Court is constrained to decide the issue than to permit the learned counsel for the petitioner to continue to blow his trumpet in the court at the cost of long pending cause list. 6. Briefly stated, the respondent Jagat Guru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University had given charge of Head of Department in the Department of Shiksha Shashtra to the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in the said department as Assistant Professor in the year 2006. Later he was promoted as Associate Professor. The petitioner held a substantive post of Associate Professor in the Department of Shiksha Shashtra, in the respondent University. 7. Dr. Divakar Mishra, the respondent No. 2 is posted as Assistant Professor. The petitioner was appointed in the said department as Assistant Professor in the year 2006. Later he was promoted as Associate Professor. The petitioner held a substantive post of Associate Professor in the Department of Shiksha Shashtra, in the respondent University. 7. Dr. Divakar Mishra, the respondent No. 2 is posted as Assistant Professor. It is pleaded case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the post of Head of Department is rotated among the members of faculty. The petitioner was initially given charge as Head of Department for a period of three years w.e.f. 24.4.2014. A copy of order dated 24.4.2014 is attached as Annexure-3. 8. Syndicate of the University in its 49th meeting, vide Annexure-4 curtailed the tenure of Head of Department from three years to two years. The decision in 49th meeting bearing Agenda No. 17, reads as under:- ^^fo'ofo|ky; esa fofHkUu foHkkxksa esa dk;Zjr foHkkxk/;{kksa ds in ij jksVs'ku ds vk/kkj ij vf/kdre 2 o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy;s fu;qr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA foHkkxksa esa dk;Zjr f'k{kdksa esa ofj"Bre 03 ladk; lnL;ksa ds chp jksVs'ku j[ks tkus ,oa vfoyEc 06 foHkkxksa ds foHkkxk/;{kksa dks mrkuqlkj fu;qr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA iz'kklfud dkj.kksa ls mr laca/k esa vko';d gksus ij mrkuqlkj fu.kZ; esa ifjorZu djus gsrq ekuuh; dqyifr egksn; dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;kA** 9. As per resolution No. 17, term of the petitioner as Head of Department would have come to an end on 24.4.2016. But some months before, on 28.9.2015, following order was passed by the respondent University:- ^^dzekad i0607@tjkjklafofo@'kS{k@15@7842 fnuakd 28-09-2015 dk;kZy; vkns'k MkW0 fnokdj feJ] lgk;d vkpk;Z] f'k{kk'kkL= foHkkx dks iz'kklfud n`f"V ls fnuakd 28-09-2015 ls vf/kdre nks o"kZ dh vof/k ;k vfxze vkns'k tks Hkh igys gks ds fy, f'k{kk'kkL= foHkkx dk foHkkxk/;{k fu;qr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vkns'k ekuuh; dqyifr egksn; }kjk vuqeksfnr gSSA dqylfpo** 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondents to curtail the term of the petitioner as Head of Department is bad in the eyes of law, as principles of natural justice were denied to the petitioner and adverse order was passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing. 11. Since the term has already expired, this Court cannot put the clock back and therefore, cannot grant the prayer of the petitioner. 11. Since the term has already expired, this Court cannot put the clock back and therefore, cannot grant the prayer of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the period for which the petitioner was denied charge for Head of Department be taken into consideration to order that for said period in future petitioner will continue as Head of Department. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent University has taken a preliminary objection to urge that the post of Head of Department is not having any legal entity, nor it is recognised as a post on the cadre of the University, nor persons having charge of Head of Department are recognised as officer or authority of the University under the Rajasthan Sanskrit University Act, 1998 or statute and Regulations made to govern the University. 13. It has been specifically averred by the University that it is a nominated post without prescription of requisite qualification for appointment. It is further stated that no extra remuneration is paid to the person having charge of Head of Department and by withdrawing charge of Head of Department from the petitioner, neither any salary nor allowances of the petitioner were reduced. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the charge of Head of Department is only an added responsibility, which is given to the member of faculty by rotation. It will be apposite here to reproduce following averments made in Para 1 of the reply, as under:- "That contents of para No. 1 of writ petition is admitted to the extent that petitioner is citizen of India, other contention of the petitioner in this para No. 1 is not admitted. The post of HOD does not bear legal entity, nor, it is recognised as officers or Authorities of the University under the Rajashan Sanskrit University Act, 1998 and statues, regulations made there under. It is nominated post without prescription of requisite qualification for appointment on it and delegation of any statutory duty to this post. This post is nonetheless except to extend help to Dean of faculties for establishment of mutual co-ordination among the function of the faculty. It is nominated post without prescription of requisite qualification for appointment on it and delegation of any statutory duty to this post. This post is nonetheless except to extend help to Dean of faculties for establishment of mutual co-ordination among the function of the faculty. As per present arrangement this post is filled in by nomination of one of three senior most teachers in rotation for a certain period of 2 years or 3 years as it may be decided by the meeting of Executive council of the University. There is no criteria prescribed for removal of appointee from the post of HOD before completion of tenure of 2 years or 3 years, it is upon the discretion of Vice Chancellor to remove or replace any appointee at any time even on extraneous reason of in competency or misconduct. There is no violation of any fundamental rights of the petitioner given by the constitution of India as well as no violation of any statutory right of petitioner so writ petition of petitioner is not maintainable being he is not having any right to come before Hon'ble Court under article 226 of constitution of India." 15. In Para-8 of the reply, the respondent University has given reasons for which charge of Head of Department was withdrawn from the petitioner including registration of FIR against the petitioner by one colleague. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 17. A prime duty of Professor or Associate Professor is to impart education, and to carry research in his given field to obtain excellence in the subject for the institution and the students. It may be noted that Head of Department in strict terms is not a post but a responsibility for performing administrative functions. No extra privilege, salary or allowance is paid in favour of the Head of Department. Withdrawal of additional responsibility cannot be construed as an adverse order. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be invoked. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this court in Prof. (Mrs.) Sheel Kanta Asopa v. The University of Rajasthan and Ors., RLR 1991 (2) 36. After the judgment rendered by this Court, much water has flown. The charge of Head of Department is now given by rotation between the members of the faculty. Head of Department is no longer a statutory post. (Mrs.) Sheel Kanta Asopa v. The University of Rajasthan and Ors., RLR 1991 (2) 36. After the judgment rendered by this Court, much water has flown. The charge of Head of Department is now given by rotation between the members of the faculty. Head of Department is no longer a statutory post. Since no disadvantage has occurred to the petitioner, therefore, for assigning administrative duties to another members of faculty, no principles of natural justice can be invoked. Hence, the judgment in the case of Sheel Kant Asopa (supra) is distinguishable. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of University of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Prof. (Dr.) Sangeeta Sharma, D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 1078/2011, decided on 8.11.2011. In this case, the petitioner was appointed as Director of Social Research Center, University of Rajasthan. A case was registered against Prof. Sangeeta Sharma in which final report in negative form was submitted. Further, the University took a decision to remove the petitioner in that case as she had made derogatory remarks against the Academic Council and walked out of the meeting and Vice Chancellor censured her conduct. In that case import of order was stigmatic in nature. 20. It is also settled legal position that where order passed is stigmatic in nature, principles of natural justice are to be followed. 21. In the present case, order Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 are not stigmatic in nature, hence, invocation of principles of natural justice is not called for. 22. Taking totality of circumstances, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.