Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 50 (JK)

Anjali Pathania v. Central University of Jammu

2018-02-02

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Contempt (SWP) No.296/2017 Mr. S. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, wishes not to press the instant contempt petition, the same is accordingly closed as ‘not pressed’. SWP No.1778/2016 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs in the nature of :- Certiorari:- Quashing the decision of the respondents conveyed to the petitioner vide No.CUJ/Regr/2016/1501 dated 17.08.2016 whereby the request of the petitioner for letter of sponsorship and guarantee of study leave for pursuing Full Time Ph.D. Programme-2016 was rejected illegally/arbitrarily and without any lawful justification; & Mandamus:- Commanding the respondents to forthwith relieve the petitioner alongwith the letter of sponsorship and guarantee of study leave (for at least 2 years) as the petitioner has already been selected for Full Time Ph. D. Programme-2016 at Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, classes for which have already commenced.” 3. The petitioner holds B.E. in Computer Science and MBA. She has also qualified NET JRF in Management conducted by UGC. The petitioner was initially appointed on contractual basis as Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour on 03.08.2012 and thereafter, appointed on substantive basis on 01.07.2013 on the basis of the recommendations of a duly constituted selection committee. The petitioner’s case is that since 01.07.2013, he is performing her duties as Assistant Professor in the Central University of Jammu-respondent herein. 4. Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi, announced admission to 2 year full time MBA and Ph.D. programmes-2016 and the petitioner had applied for the Ph.D., programme on the premise that she is serving as Assistant Professor in Central University of Jammu and will be eligible to pursue the aforesaid programme. 5. On 19.01.2016, the petitioner as ‘in-service candidate’ made a representation to respondent No.1, namely, Registrar, Central University of Jammu through proper channel, respondent Nos.3 & 5, to pursue the Ph.D. Programme-2016 in FMS Delhi University. She sought for permission or in particular, a letter of sponsorship and guarantee of study leave from the Registrar of Central University of Jammu. The Central University of Jammu did not issue the requisite certificate or permission and therefore, the petitioner applied on her own in Delhi University. She sought for permission or in particular, a letter of sponsorship and guarantee of study leave from the Registrar of Central University of Jammu. The Central University of Jammu did not issue the requisite certificate or permission and therefore, the petitioner applied on her own in Delhi University. It appears that the petitioner was shortlisted by the Delhi University and interviewed by the Selection Committee but with a rider that she should provide the sanction by the Central University of Jammu before seeking and pursuing the Ph.D. Programme. Therefore, on 30.05.2016, the petitioner made another representation for sanction of study leave. 6. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that a number of representations and personal visits were made by the petitioner to the University for grant of study leave and sanction. Since the request or representations went unheeded, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SWP No.1620/2016 alongwith MP No.01/2016, in which the following order (Annexure-P) dated 09.08.2016 was passed:- “In the meantime, subject to objections and till next date before the Bench, it is ordered that the Central University, Jammu shall take an appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner positively within a period of one week.” 7. Consequent thereupon, a detailed order has been passed by the Head Human Resource Management and OB which has been communicated to the petitioner and the said order is now under challenge. The impugned order is dated 17.08.2016 (Annexure-R), covering letter to the impugned order. The impugned order is assailed by the petitioner on several grounds. The petitioner claims to have completed two years on the said post and therefore, she is eligible to be considered for grant of study leave to pursue the Ph.D. programme and that the reasons given in the rejection order are not legally tenable. 8. Per contra, Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Govind Raina, learned counsel appearing for the University, refers to the objections filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and primarily contends that there is an issue of confirmation insofar as the petitioner is concerned which is the subject-matter of another writ petition bearing SWP No.2925/2016. For the present case, we are not concerned with the scope or merit of that writ petition. 9. For the present case, we are not concerned with the scope or merit of that writ petition. 9. He points out that the primary reason for the University declining to grant study leave was on account of the fact that the University is in infancy stage and it needs faculty to support the new University. Further contention of the counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, which is also revealed from the impugned order, is that the department concerned is running with lesser 50% faculty and, therefore, the University study programme is at stake and if the teaching staff are given permission to pursue the Ph.D. programme at one go, then it may lead to a situation, where the University will be found faulty being ‘under staffed’ and it will also raise unnecessary issues on NAAC accreditation. The University also has to maintain certain basic parameters with regard to teaching staff so that the quality of education is not compromised. 10. On the other hand, the issue raised by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in terms of University Grants Commission Regulations No.F.3-1/2009 dated 30 June, 2010, Regulation 8.2 relates to Study Leave, and 8.2 (i) & (ii) are relevant. Learned counsel for the petitioner would primarily rely upon 8.2 (ii) to contend that she has the requisite eligibility of two years after entry to seek for permission to pursue the Ph.D. programme. Clause 8.2 (ii) of the UGC Regulation reads as follows:- “Subject to the terms contained in this Clause 8.2, in respect of granting study leave with pay for acquiring Ph.D. in a relevant discipline while in service, the number of years to be put in after entry would be a minimum of two or the years of probation specified in the University statutes concerned, keeping in mind the availability of vacant positions for teachers and other cadres in colleges and universities, so that a teacher and other cadres entering service without Ph.D. or higher qualification could be encouraged to acquire these qualifications in the relevant disciplines at the earliest rather than at a later stage of the career.” 11. On the contrary, it is pleaded by Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior counsel, that issue of grant of study leave by the Competent Authority may be considered on certain parameters contained in Clause-(i) & (ii). On the contrary, it is pleaded by Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior counsel, that issue of grant of study leave by the Competent Authority may be considered on certain parameters contained in Clause-(i) & (ii). One of the contingencies is that the University should take into consideration the vacancy position of teachers in the College and the University to grant such permission. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the later part of 8.2 (ii) of the UGC Regulations to plead that the University should encourage fresh entrance to pursue Ph.D. programme at the earliest stage in view of the specific bar in the same regulation that study leave for pursuing higher courses should not be considered at the later stage. 12. Clause-(v), which reads as follows:- “Study leave shall not be granted to a teacher who is due to retire within five years of the date on which he/she is expected to return to duty after the expiry of study leave.” 13. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that on one side, the University has to balance the teachers-students ratio for effective management of the curriculum for the students of the University whereas on the other hand, there is also an intendment that fresh entrant to service should be encouraged to pursue Ph.D. programme. This delicate balance should be based on real time assessment of the teachers-students strength. In the present case, it appears that at the relevant point of time, there was certain inherent difficulty in grant of sanction/permission for study leave. The situation which prevailed in August, 2016 can be relooked by the University taking note of the fact that the petitioner in this case has been granted permission to pursue the course by Delhi University to pursue Ph.D. programme. However, this will be considered in the light of the teachers-students ratio as envisaged under Clause-8.2(ii) keeping in mind the period of service already put in by the petitioner de hors the other writ petition pending. 14. At this stage, this Court does not find any reason to go into the interpretation of Clause-8.2 (i) or (ii) for the purposes of deciding the present case, as the Court is inclined to remand the matter to the University for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim. 14. At this stage, this Court does not find any reason to go into the interpretation of Clause-8.2 (i) or (ii) for the purposes of deciding the present case, as the Court is inclined to remand the matter to the University for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s claim. Needless to state, the issue raised by the petitioner is not adversial but only to pursue her career for her educational/professional betterment which will also help the students of the University. A balance has to be found by the University Body as contemplated in the Central University of Jammu Ordinance No.16. A decision in this regard be taken afresh by the University Body within eight to twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. Writ petition alongwith connected MPs stands disposed of as above.