Dr. Rajendra Prasad vs Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4363 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7555 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Rajendra Prasad
 
Respondent :- Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad Univ.Of Agri.& Tech. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Krishna,Abhishek Pratap,Ratnesh Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uttam Kumar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State and Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the office of the Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, order dated 29.10.2020 passed by Director, Administration and Monitoring, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the same Officer. These orders are contained in Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Assistant Professor in the opposite party University on 14.02.1984. He says that he was promoted as Associate Professor on 10.12.1998. He was thereafter promoted as Professor on 11.04.2008. On 05.12.2008 the State Government issued a government order with regard to the Career Advancement Scheme for teachers in the University including the opposite party University. The claim of the petitioner is, as per the said scheme he having fulfilled of 17 years of continuous service and as on 08.02.2001 he was working as Associate Professor, therefore, as per the said Government Order dated 05.12.2008, he was entitled to be given the pay-scale and perquisites of the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme. He laid claim to the aforesaid benefit, which, in fact, was granted by the University on 22.11.2016 w.e.f. 18.02.2001, but, the said order was not actually implemented, therefore, he submitted his representation and then, approached the High Court by means of Writ Petition No. 32115 (S/S) of 2018 which was decided on 01.11.2018 and a direction was given to opposite party no. 3 therein i.e. the Vice Chancellor to consider and pass appropriate reasoned speaking order in accordance with law on the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2018 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the said order.

Needless to say that the benefit under the Career Advancement Scheme is in the nature of personal promotion i.e. even if he has not actually been promoted with effect from the date of eligibility he will get the emoluments of the promotional post on personal basis. In compliance of the order dated 01.11.2018 the concerned opposite party passed an order on 12.02.2019 contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. In the said order all that has been said is that on serious examination of the matter, the earlier order dated 22.11.2016 has not been found to be in accordance with Rules, therefore, it is withdrawn, but, no reason has been given as to what exactly was the illegality or error in the order dated 22.11.2016 or in passing the same, therefore, this order, on the face of it, is not in consonance with the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 32115 (S/S) of 2018 which enjoined upon the concerned opposite party to pass a reasoned and speaking order, as, it does not contain any reason much less a valid one.

This order dated 12.02.2019 was put to challenge by the petitioner before the Chancellor under Section 23 of the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958. The said proceedings were allowed on 25.11.2019 in favour of the petitioner, a copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure No. 4. The Chancellor opined that the order was not a speaking order as had been directed by the High Court. It accordingly quashed the said order dated 12.02.2019 and directed the concerned to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. After this a review petition was filed by the University which was rejected by the Chancellor on 01.06.2020 on the ground that no such power of review vested in the Chancellor. Thereafter, the University sought opinion from its counsel and based on it, has passed the impugned order dated 29.10.2019 contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition.

Shri Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel for University vehemently argued that the petitioner had no claim under the Career Advancement Scheme, however, on being asked to point out as to in which line of the impugned order this aspect had been discussed and as to how the earlier dated 22.11.2016 was not in accordance with Rules, he fairly submitted that this fact has not been mentioned.

The Court has carefully perused the impugned order as also the legal opinion quoted therein. After having gone through the order all that can be said is that it is indeed unfortunate that the University has passed such an order which does not comply with any of the requirements as ordered by this Court on 01.11.2018 in Writ Petition No. 32115 (S/S) of 2018 nor does it comply the order of the Chancellor dated 25.11.2019. There is no consideration of merits of the claim of the petitioner at all in the impugned order. The order merely reiterates the earlier decision that the earlier order dated 22.11.2016 is not in accordance with Rules without disclosing as to why and how it is so. It is shocking that the University should have passed such an order. It is unfortunate that the petitioner is being made to run from pillar to post for nothing. All that was required for the University was to give reason as to why the order dated 22.11.2016 is not in accordance with Rules. Without saying anything time and again rejections orders are being passed.

As far as Annexure no. 1 is concerned the passing of order dated 29.10.2020 gave a fresh cause to the petitioner to approach the Chancellor, but, the said proceedings have not been decided on merits. Nevertheless, as the orders passed by the University are also under challenge and this Court is of the considered opinion that as the said order dated 29.10.2020 is also under challenge which, as already observed, is patently illegal and liable to be quashed, therefore, it is quashed and it is not necessary to quash the order made by the Office of the Chancellor dated 04.01.2021.

As regards Annexure No. 3 dated 12.02.2019 the same already stands quashed by the Chancellor's order dated 25.11.2019, nevertheless, as it has been reiterated by the order of the University dated 29.10.2020, therefore, it is once again quashed.

As regards the contempt petition learned counsel for petitioner was not present and it is only on the statement made by the University's counsel that the said proceedings were disposed of. There is nothing in the said order to indicate that the contempt petition was dismissed on merits so to say as has been opined by learned counsel. The dismissal of contempt petition has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. The Contempt Court can not look into merits of the claim of the petitioner nor has it done so.

The Vice Chancellor is now directed to look into the matter himself in light of the judgment dated 01.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 32115(S/S) of 2018 and the observations made in this judgment and take a considered decision in accordance with law, say, within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before him.

It is made clear that each and every point that may be raised by the petitioner in support of his claim shall be considered independently and separately as also cumulatively. If this time un-reasoned, non speaking and cryptic order is passed, then, the Court would take serious view of the matter, as, this Court can never permit the abuse of the process of the Court in such manner. Without any reason so much litigation has taken place before this Court and before the Chancellor, all because the Vice Chancellor did not pass a reasoned order which was all that he was required to be done.

At this stage Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for petitioner also mentions that the Vice Chancellor never passed the order himself and it is the Director who has always passed the order.

This Court direct the Voice Chancellor to himself look into the matter and pass his own orders in this case as aforesaid.

The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

It is made clear that the Court has not entered into merits of the claim of the petitioner and the same shall be considered by the Vice Chancellor as aforesaid.

Order Date :- 23.3.2021

R.K.P