Dr. Naresh Kumar Pruthi vs Vice Chancellor Ch. Charan Singh ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 6355 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22105 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Naresh Kumar Pruthi
 
Respondent :- Vice Chancellor Ch. Charan Singh Univ. & Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi
 
Respondent Counsel :- Anurag Khanna,Shailendra
 

 
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.

1.This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 07.02.2002 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. The order impugned is appended as Annexure 13 to the writ petition.

2.By the impugned order, the Vice Chancellor of the University has held respondent no. 3 senior to the petitioner by counting his past services rendered in Narain College, Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

3.The brief facts culled out from the record are that the petitioner claimed to have been appointed on 15.12.1976 as Lecturer in Agricultural Chemistry in the College. According to him, respondent no. 3, Sri D. K. Sharma joined the College as Lecturer in Agricultural Chemistry on 01.01.1986 i.e. more than nine years after the joining of the services by the petitioner accordingly, his name was placed below the petitioner in the list of seniority of the College. The Principal, Chhotu Ram Post Graduate College, Muzaffarnagar, which is an affiliated College of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut issued office memorandum dated 26.02.1993 inviting objections from the teachers of the College regarding the seniority list.

4.Some of the teachers submitted that the seniority as existing on the date has not been disturbed for the last about seventeen years therefore, it should not be disturbed. According to the petitioner, as his grievance and of others was not being considered by the Principal, a representation was preferred to the Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut.

5.It appears that the Deputy Registrar (Affiliation), Meerut University, Meerut requested the Principal to follow the provision of Statute 11.34 (old) and Statute 18.01(new). Statute 18.01 read as under:-

"Status contained in this Chapter shall not affect the inter se seniority of teachers, employed in the university from before the commencement of these Statutes."

6.The grievance of the petitioner is that when the Principal of the College did not restore the seniority list in existence since 1975, the teachers moved the Vice Chancellor, Meerut University for directing the Principal to comply with the directions given by the Deputy Registrar (Affiliation), Meerut University, Meerut dated, 19.06.1993. The Vice Chancellor after making certain queries and on perusal of records came to a conclusion by order dated 21.04.1994 that seniority list as existing in 1975 can not be disturbed. As a consequence of the aforesaid order dated 21.04.1994, the Principal of the College (respondent no. 2) restored the seniority list by his order dated 06.11.1995 which was maintained since 1975.

7.Aggrieved by the order, the respondent no. 3 moved representation before the Vice Chancellor inter alia that consequent to order dated 21.04.1994, the Principal by his order dated 06.11.1995 had already disturbed the seniority list showing respondent no. 3 as junior to Dr. H. S. Sirohi whereas by the earlier order dated 20.10.1993, he had been shown senior to Dr. H. S. Sirohi. He also requested correction of the seniority list accordingly. He also moved a representation to the Hon'ble Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh Univeristy, Meerut apprising him about the dispute of seniority between him and Dr. H.S. Sirohi, which had remained undecided by the Vice Chancellor.

8.It appears that Hon'ble Chancellor, by his order dated 12.07.2001 observed that since the matter pertaining to determination of seniority is pending before the University authorities, as such, they were directed to decide the points raised in the representation of respondent no. 3 after hearing all the parties concerned.

9.The petitioner then moved an application to the Vice Chancellor requesting for an opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken in the matter of seniority as he claimed that he was likely to be affected by any order passed by the Vice Chancellor in this regard. After a number of representations from the petitioner, Vice Chancellor taking into consideration the past service rendered by respondent no. 3 in Narain College, Shikohabad U.P. ultimately decided the seniority of teachers vide his order dated 07.02.2002 holding respondent no. 3 to be senior to the petitioner

10.The order impugned is assailed on the ground that the Vice Chancellor had acted illegally by adding the entire period of service rendered by respondent no. 3 in Narain College, Shikohabad for holding him senior to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that length of service of respondent no. 3 ought to have been counted only w.e.f. 16.01.1978 till 31.12.1985 rendered in Narain College, Shikohabad and that too half of it in view of statute 18.05 (d), which is as under:

"(d) When any teacher holding substantial post in any college affiliated to or associated with any University is appointed whether before or after the commencement of these statutes, as a Lecturer in the University, then one half of the period of substantive services rendered by such teacher in such college shall be added to his length of service."

11.It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Statutes no. 18.01 and 18.05 (d) fall under the Chapter XVIII under heading, "Seniority of the teachers of the University". It is stated that though the petitioner as well as respondent are not the teachers in the University but of an affiliated College, therefore, the statutes are applicable to them in view of Statute No. 18.16, which reads thus:

"The provisions of statute 18.01, 18.02, 18.05 and 18.08 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the teachers and principals of affiliated colleges as they apply to the teachers of the university."

12.It is also submitted that in the impugned order, the Vice Chancellor has rejected the contention of the petitioner that any opportunity of hearing was likely to be given to him therefore in the impugned order, this denial of opportunity being passed by the Vice Chancellor is liable to be set aside being in the teeth of the order dated 12.07.2001. The crux of the arguments of the petitioner in short is that:-

Provisions of Statute No. 18.05 of the First Schedule of Meerut University, Meerut, are applicable in the present case and only service rendered by the Respondent No. 3 in Narain College, Shikohabad (in substantive capacity) is to be counted towards total length of service for the purpose of deciding the seniority of the respondent No. 3 and that respondent No. 1 acted illegally in adding the entire period of service rendered by the respondent No. 3 in Narain College, Shikohabad instead of half of it for the purposes of determining seniority of the respondent No. 3.

The services rendered by respondent No. 3 on post of Lecturer in Agricultural Chemistry in Narain College, Shikohabad during the period of 3.11.1976 to 15.1.1978 were purely temporary period of his service cannot be counted for deciding the total length of service rendered by him. Furthermore appointment of respondent no. 3 in Chotu Ram Post Graduage College as Lecturere was in the subject of Agricultural Chemistry though he was working as temporary Lecturer in Agricultural Biochemistry on 16.1.1978 and thus for deciding the seniority the length of service of respondent No. 3 will be counted with effect from 16.1.1978 in the earlier College, therefore seniority of resondent no. 3 ought be counted with effect from 16.1.1978 till 31.12.1985 and that too half of it for the purpose of addition of his past services in other colleges.

The respondent No. 3 was always shown as junior to the petitioner and he never raised any grievance in this regard for several years and now he can not claim that he is senior to the petitioner in the College, and the law of estoppel will apply.

It is vehemently argued that for all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed/interfered with by this Court.

13.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that admittedly the Statutes published under Notification No. 469 (XV)-10-77-39(9)-760 dated 20.04.1977 came into force w.e.f. 01.05.1977. According to him, Statute 18.05 (old) of the First Statute of the Meerut University would not apply in view of the provisions contained in Statute No. 18.01, which has already been quoted in the body of this judgement. It is stated that Principal of the College (respondent no. 2) was directed by the Deputy Registrar (Affiliation), Meerut University, Meerut to follow the provisions of Statute 11.34 of the Old Statutes and 18.01 of the New Statute of Meerut University to avoid complications. He further submits that since petitioner was not a party before the Chancellor, therefore, it was not incumbent upon the Vice Chancellor to give him an opportunity of hearing before determining the seniority of Lecturers.

14.He further submits that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the seniority list before the Vice Chancellor, which was pending at the time when the counter affidavit was filed and a perusal of the order passed by Vice Chancellor shows that it was only representation of the respondent no. 3, which was to be decided by the Vice Chancellor after giving opportunity to the "persons concerned". The petitioner had moved a representation directly to the Vice Chancellor of the Meerut University after the order had been passed by the Chancellor on the representation of the respondent no. 3 and it is on the representation of the petitioner, that Vice Chancellor held that the petitioner is not liable to be given an opportunity of hearing, as the matter before him as it pertaining to the matter of respondent no. 3 only which was remanded by the Chancellor.

15.After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we find that Statute 18.01 is the relevant provision regarding determination of the seniority list of the Lecturers in the affiliated Colleges. Admittedly Statute 18.05 came into force w.e.f. 01.15.1977. At that time, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 3 were working on substantive posts of Lecturers prior to enforcement of aforesaid Statute 18.05. In the circumstances, Statute 18.01 would prevail to remove any confusion and complication regarding past services rendered by the Lecturers in the Colleges affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. We therefore find that the petitioner has rightly been placed below the respondent no. 3 whose full/entire past services were rightly been counted for determining the length of his service taking the period of past services in other colleges also for the reason that respondent no. 3., which came into service on 03.11.1976 prior to the petitioner, who came in service on 15.12.1976.

16.. We also find that since admittedly from record the position of date of joining service is not disputed by the parties, therefore Vice Chancellor in every right to come to the conclusion on the basis of records submitted by the parties that opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was not required as being junior to respondent no. 3 was not person concerned having joined his service later in time to him. For all the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 7.12.2011

yachna