Allahabad High Court
Prof. G. Anjaneya Shastri vs V.C. B.H.U. And 3 Others on 16 May, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Daya Shankar Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21036 of 2017
Petitioner :- Prof. G. Anjaneya Shastri
Respondent :- V.C. B.H.U. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajeet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned Counsel for the Banaras Hindu University.
The petitioner is claiming his entitlement of continuing to act as Dean, Sanskrit Vidya Dharam Vigyan Faculty. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been deprived of the parial tenure of 3 years not on account of his actions, but on account of the impediment created due to the action taken by the University. It is further submitted that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had already explained his conduct, yet he was not allowed to continue for the balance period whereafter he had to file Writ-A No.48824 of 2014, where a direction was issued on 11.9.2014 to decide his representation.
Thereafter, the petitioner had been again given charge as Dean for the balance period that still remained out of the total period of 3 years. The respondent No.4 has now been allowed to act as Dean and it is urged that since the petitioner had been denied the said benefit as per Statute - 9 of the Banaras Hindu University Statutes, an appropriate writ should issue to compensate the period that has been denied to the petitioner and also quash the order dated 14.7.2016.
Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi for the respondent-University submits that it was the own act of the petitioner that had resulted in this impediment and it is evident from the narration of the facts in the writ petition itself that the conduct of the petitioner was such that he had to be relieved of his charge as Dean of Faculty that was handed over to the fourth respondent vide order dated 14.7.2016.
It is also urged by Sri Awasthi that as stated in para - 11 of the writ petiion, the petitioner realizing his mistake had acknowledged the same by tendering an apology before the Vice-Chancellor and it is for this reason that the petitioner himself was responsible for any such impediment.
Having considered the submissions raised and having perused the relevant provisions, Statute - 9 of the BHU Statutes is extracted hereunder:-
"9. Dean of Faculties
(1) There shall be a Dean of each Faculty; the head of each of the Departments within the Faculty, who is a Professor, shall, by rotation according to seniority, act as the Dean of the Faculty for a period of three years.
Provided that, in any Faculty:-
(i) If there is no Professor, the seniormost Reader shall act as Dean, and
(ii) If there is no Professor or Reader, the Vice-Chancellor shall act as Dean.
(2) The Dean shall be the Chairman of the Faculty and shall be reponsible for the due observation of these Statutes, the Ordinance and the Regulations relating to the Faculty.
(3) The Dean shall be responsible for the organization and conduct of teaching and research work in the department comprised in the Faculty.
(4) The Dean shall exercise such other powers and perform such other functions and duties as may be assigned to him by the Executive Council of the Vice-Chancellor."
The privilege that is given to act as a Dean is governed by the aforesaid Statute, but the words used therein are to the effect that a Professor shall, by rotation according to seniority, act as the Dean of the Faculty for a period of three years. The word 'act' is not an equivalent of the word 'appointment'. It is thus a privilege under the Statute itself to act as a Dean, but at the same time, learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that the same would become a justiciable cause in the event it is found that the University has acted arbitrarily.
In the instant case, what we find is that an incident had taken place that was acknowledged by the petitioner who tendered an apology to that effect. In such circumstances, the University had to take an action and the action having been taken cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power on the basis whereof the petitioner cannot claim extension of his continuance to act as Dean as a matter of right. Consequently, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Rejected with the aforesaid observations.
Order Date :- 16.5.2017
lakshman
[Daya Shankar Tripathi, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]
