Dr. K.S. Jawatkar vs The Chancellor, Jnu And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2322 Del

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 29th October, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing C.M. No. 13407/2007 filed by the appellant. By the said application, the appellant had prayed that W.P.(C) No. 911/2007 titled Dr. K.S. Jawatkar v. Chancellor of J.N.U. and Ors. may be listed before a Division Bench "in compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 30th July, 2007 in SLP (Civil) No. 11725/2007 implicit in the then order dated 12th October, 2001 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in WP(C) No. 6107/2000".

2. We have heard the appellant who appears in person. The appellant was an Associate Professor in Centre of International Politics, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years in August, 1998. By letter dated 24th March, 1998 he was informed that the Executive Council of the University had decided to re-employ him. Thereafter vide Order dated 22nd May, 1998 he was re-employed for a period of three years from 1st September, 1998. However, before he retired and could be re-employed, the retirement age in the University was raised to 62 years. Accordingly, the appellant continued in service up to 30th August, 2002, when he attained the age of 62 years and retired. In 2000, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 6107/2000 praying for several reliefs including relief of re-employment and appointment to A. Appadorai Chair in International Relations based on several grounds including letter dated 24th March, 1998 granting him re-employment for a period of three years. The said Writ Petition was rejected. Writ Appeal No. 68/2004 was filed before a Division Bench but the appellant did not succeed. The contention of the appellant that he was entitled to re-employment for three years and to remain in service up to the age of 65 years was rejected, inter alia, holding that the letter dated 24th March, 1998 and Order dated 22nd April, 1998 were not given effect as before the retirement of the appellant in August, 1998 on attaining the age of 60 years, the retirement age was raised to 62 years. SLP was filed against the said judgment of the Division Bench but the appellant did not succeed and the SLP was dismissed on 16th November, 2004.

3. We may reproduce below the Order dated 21st January, 2004 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 68/2004, which reads as under:

Petitioner was an Associate Professor in International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University. He was to retire on attaining 60 years age at the relevant time in August, 1998. It was in or around this time that respondent No. 2 addressed him letter dated 24th March, 1998 informing him that Executive Council of the University had decided to reemploy him. The university also issued order dated 22nd May, 1998 for his re-employment for three years along with some others from 1st September, 1998. On his retirement after attaining 60 years on 30th August, 1998. But before he could be reemployed pursuant to this order, his retirement age was raised to 62 years. He continued in regular service as a result up to 30th August, 2000. After he completed this tenure also, he embarked on a fresh venture of claiming to stay on in service till 65 years on the strength of earlier University order dated 22nd May, 1998 whereby he was to be reemployed for three years from 1st September, 1998 and additionally laid to claim for appointment to Professor A. Appadorai Chair in International Relations. His claim was rejected and he filed CWP No. 6107/2000 in this Court praying for several reliefs including for his re-employment from three more years. This writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20th November, 2003 holding that he had no vested right of re-employment or any further extension in service and also no right of consideration for appointment to A. Appadorai Chair in International Relations.

Appellant feels aggrieved of this. Arguing in person, he again invoked the University Order dated 22nd May, 1998 to claim that he was entitled to re-employment for three years and remain in service up to the age of 65 years. No other issue was taken by him.

Apart from the reasoning given by the writ Court, we find that appellant's claims suffers from serious misconception. He overlooks that he was initially to retire in August, 1998 on attaining 60 years of age and it was in that context, that he was offered reemployment for three years from 1st September, 1998. And since meanwhile retirement age was raised on which basis he remained in service till he attained 62 years of age on 30.8.2000, the question of giving effect to a previous University order dated 22nd May, 1998 which was passed in the light of his retirement due on attaining 60 years of age, therefore did not arise. On the other issue of appointment to the A. Appadorai Chair, we find ourselves unable to disagree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

4. In 2007, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5/2007 before the Supreme Court. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 22nd January, 2007 which reads as under :

The petitioner, appearing in person, prays for leave to withdraw this writ petition so that he may file a writ petition before the High Court. Prayer is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to move the High Court. We make it clear that nothing said in this order shall be construed as expression of opinion on the merit of the petition.

5. Thereafter, the appellant filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911/2007 before this Court. The said Writ Petition is listed and pending before the learned Single Judge in terms of the High Court Rules. In this Writ Petition, the appellant-herein has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) Direct the Chancellor and respondent-University to grant statutory promotion to the petitioner as Professor w.e.f. 1-1-1992 and/or alternatively Appadorai Chair in International Relations w.e.f. 1995 as contemplated in Supreme Court order dated 27th July 1984 on the benefits of emoluments as well as seniority and promotions and its final judgment dated 12th May 1989: JNR v. Dr.K. S.Jawatkar and Ors. and do complete justice;

(b) Direct the Chancellor and respondent-University the petitioner be deemed to have continued in service up to the age of 65 years in terms of statutory provision of Clause 6 of Academic Ordinance relating to conditions of service of University appointed teachers as stood on the Statute Book vide Resolution No. 4(h)/EC/ 19.4.1976;

(c) Direct the Chancellor and respondent University to pay the entire arrears of salaries up to 31st August 2003 and other statutory dues, including pension w.e.f. 1st September 2003 with interest thereon;

(d) Direct the Chancellor and respondent-University to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner, including the benefits of emoluments, designations, scale of pay, increment, provident fund, retirement benefits, pensions etc. in terms of prayers (a) to (c) with interest thereon; and

(e) Pass such and further orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The appellant submits that as his Writ Appeal No. 68/2004 was disposed of by a Division Bench, the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911/2007 should also be listed before a Division Bench as the Single Judge cannot ignore and take a contrary view than the one taken by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 68/2004.

7. We feel that the plea taken by the appellant who appears in person is entirely misconceived. One of the issues which will arise for consideration before the learned Single Judge is whether Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911/2007 is barred by res judicata and other analogous principles. In case the appellant is able to meet the said challenge, necessarily the Order dated 24th January, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 68/2004 will not come in the way of the appellant. In case the appellant does not succeed the said writ petition may be dismissed. We may add here that Order passed in Writ Appeal No. 68/2004 has attained finality as Special Leave Petition filed against the said Order was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide Order dated 16th November, 2004. Therefore, it makes no difference whether W.P.(Civil) No. 911/2007 is listed before a single Judge or a Division Bench. Under the High Court Rules, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911/2007 is to be heard and decided by a Single Judge and not by a Division Bench. We may refer here to Chapter III, Part B, Rule 1(xviii)(a) of the Delhi High Court Rules which reads as under:

1. Cases ordinarily to be heard by a single Judge-Subject to the provisos hereinafter set forth the following classes of cases shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a Judge setting alone:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[(xviii) (a) Application or petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of any directions, orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto or certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India or for any other purpose,

8. Normally, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to be heard by a Single Judge. In exceptional cases, Single Judge can refer the matter/writ petition to a Division Bench for decision. We may refer here to a decision in the case of Niranjan Das Kapur v. P.M. Dalal, Deputy Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. reported in Vol.LXV-1963 PLR 125 wherein similar provision was examined by a Circuit Bench of Punjab High Court in Delhi and it was held that ordinarily the matter should be heard by a Single Judge and only in exceptional cases a matter can be heard by a Division Bench and only Chief Justice is competent to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We do not think any ground or reason has been made out to direct Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911/2007 should be heard by a Division Bench. Mere fact that earlier Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6107/2000 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Single Judge and the dismissal order was confirmed by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 68/2004, is not a good ground and cause to list Writ Petition (Civil) No. 911/2007 before a Division Bench. No exceptional case has been made out to transfer the aforesaid Writ Petition to a Division Bench.

9. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.