Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1115 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Mahala v. University Of Rajasthan

2021-07-13

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, SANGEET LODHA

body2021
JUDGMENT Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. 1. This intra court appeal has been preferred by the successful petitioner against the condition put by the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition vide its order dated 23.3.2020, restricting his entitlement to continue on the post of Head of the Public Administration Department (for brevity `the HoD') in University of Rajasthan (for short- `the UoR') till a permanent Associate Professor joins. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant, being Associate Professor, was appointed as HoD by the respondent UoR vide order dated 19.3.2015 for three years. The Headship of Departments in UoR is governed by rotation as provided under the guidelines approved by the Syndicate. On expiry of the term of Headship of the petitioner on 18.3.2018, vide order dated 20.3.2018, Dr. Ashok Singh, the then Assistant Professor, was appointed as HoD. In the writ petition no.6697/2018 preferred by the appellant against the order dated 20.3.2018, this Court vide its interim order dated 8.4.2019 stayed the order dated 20.3.2018. Thereafter, the UoR vide its order dated 22.4.2019 appointed Dr. Shalini Chaturvedi, the respondent no.3, a Probationer Associate Professor as HoD. The writ petition no.8141/2019 preferred by the appellant challenging the appointment of the respondent no.3 has been allowed by the order impugned herein; but, while holding the appellant entitled to continue as HoD, his tenure has been made subject to joining of a permanent Associate Professor in the Department. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rider, learned counsel for the appellant contended that tenure of HoD, as per the guidelines laid down by the Syndicate, is three years which could not have been curtailed by the learned Single Judge by imposing the aforesaid condition. Referring the various orders, such as, Annexures-A1, A/R-1, A/R-2, A/R-4 & A/R-5 dated 22.4.2020, 11.1.2010, 6.5.2020, 17.11.2017 and 18.11.2020 respectively, learned counsel submitted that similarly situated other HoDs in various faculties have been reappointed for three years. He, therefore, prayed that the direction contained in the order dated 23.3.2020 be deleted and his appointment order dated 22.4.2020 be modified suitably deleting the rider contained therein. 4. He, therefore, prayed that the direction contained in the order dated 23.3.2020 be deleted and his appointment order dated 22.4.2020 be modified suitably deleting the rider contained therein. 4. Learned counsel for the UoR submitted that the appointment order dated 22.4.2020 came to be issued by it in pursuance of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, He, however, did not dispute that orders of re-appointment of other HoDs in absence of availability of suitable candidate for appointment by rotation, have been issued for a period of three years. 5. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in restricting right of the appellant to continue as HoD till the new eligible Associate Professor joins. He further submitted that a writ petition preferred by the respondent no.3 claiming her confirmation as Associate Professor on completion of one year on probation in terms of University Statute is subjudice before this Court and in case the same is allowed, the appellant would not be entitled to continue as HoD. 6. Disputing that the petitioner is entitled to continue for a fresh term of three years on re-appointment, learned senior counsel, however, could not dispute that had the order impugned dated 23.3.2020 did not contain any rider limiting entitlement of the appellant to continue as HoD, his order of appointment would have been in similar terms as has been passed in cases of other similarly situated HoDs. 7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 8. The condition imposed by learned Single Judge permitting the appellant to continue on the post of HoD till a permanent Associate Professor joins in the Department cannot be sustained for the reason that indisputably, the tenure of a HoD cannot go beyond three years as stipulated in the guidelines which can be curtailed by the Vice Chancellor for the exigencies mentioned therein. Hence, the blanket continuation of the appellant as HoD which also infringes upon discretion of the Vice Chancellor to shorten the tenure flies in the face of guidelines relating to rotation of Headship. Therefore, the condition deserves to be struck down. 9. The re-appointment orders available on record issued in favour of other HoDs are for a period of three years. Therefore, the condition deserves to be struck down. 9. The re-appointment orders available on record issued in favour of other HoDs are for a period of three years. Learned counsels for the respective parties did not dispute that the appointment order dated 22.4.2020 issued in favour of the appellant would have been in similar terms as issued in respect of other HoDs but for the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned dated 23.3.2020. In view thereof, this appeal is allowed in the below mentioned terms: (1) the direction of the learned Single Judge to permit the appellant to continue as Head of the Public Administration Department till a permanent Teacher holding the post of Associate Professor is made available and joins in the Department, is quashed and set aside; (2) the University of Rajasthan shall amend the appointment order dated 22.4.2020 in terms of re-appointment orders issued in favour of other HoDs; (3) the aforesaid direction(s) shall not prejudice rights of the respondent no.3 subject to decision of the pending writ petition filed by her. 10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.