Delhi High Court
Professor J.P. Shrivastava vs Universtiy Of Delhi And Anr on 10 April, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 4738/2014
% 10th April, 2015
PROFESSOR J.P. SHRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Som Dutta Sharma with
Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
UNIVERSTIY OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Beenashaw N. Soni, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner seeks the relief that he should be appointed as the Head of
the Department of Geology and he also be held entitled to act as the Dean of
the Faculty of Science. Claim of the petitioner is based on his being the
senior most.
2. Petitioner places reliance upon Ordinance XXIII of the respondent
no.1/University and Statute 12 (1) of the respondent no.1/University. These
provisions being Ordinance XXIII and Statue 12 (1) of the respondent
no.1/University read as under:
" Ordinance XXIII. Heads of Departments:
1. The Head of the department shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor
by observing, as far as possible the principle of rotation. Such
appointments shall be reported to the Executive Council.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1, if for any reason it has
not been possible to appoint a person as Head of the Department who is
senior to the person (persons) who has already served or is serving as
Head of the Department, it shall be open to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint
that person as Head of the Department whenever a vacancy next occurs if
he can otherwise be so appointed.
3. The Head of the Department shall hold office for a period of three
years. A person shall not ordinarily be appointed as Head of the
Department for a second consecutive term.
4. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause-2, pending the
appointment of a Head of the Department or during his absence on leave,
the Vice-Chancellor may ask any Professor or any Reader in the
Department either to discharge the current duties of the Head of the
Department or to act as Head of the Department, as the case may be, as a
purely temporary measure.
Note: The Principle of rotation will apply from the person who is next in
order of seniority to the person who has already served or is serving as
Head of the department.
Statue 12(1)
The Deanship of a Faculty will rotate amongst the Departments of that
faculty. For that purpose a list of such Departments, in the order
reckoned from the date of their establishment, the oldest Department being
put first and so on, shall be prepared. Where two or more departments
have been established on the same date, their relative place in the list will
be determined by draw of lots.
Any person who is the Head of that Department whose turn comes
according to the list, shall be the dean for a period of three years provided
that if that person ceases to be the Head before completing the said term,
his successor in the Department shall be the Dean for the remainder of the
term and provided further that in a case where the turn of such a
department comes where the Dean is to act as the Head, that Department
will be bypassed by the one immediately next to it in the list."
3. I have had an occasion to examine this very issue as to whether a
person who claims to be senior must necessarily be appointed as the Head of
the Department, in the case of Prof. Sharda Sharma Vs. University of Delhi
& Ors. in W.P.(C) No.5568/2013 decided on 04.9.2013. The judgment
dated 04.9.2013 reads as under:-
"1. Petitioner is working as a Professor in the Department of
Sanskrit of the respondent no.1-University of Delhi. By this writ
petition, petitioner seeks the relief that she should be appointed as Head
of the Department of Sanskrit in the respondent no.1-University.
Petitioner claims this entitlement on the ground that petitioner will now
be the senior most person in the Department of Sanskrit.
2. Admittedly, the relevant provisions with respect to appointing
of Head of the Department of Sanskrit are Statute 9 (2) (d) and
Ordinance XXIII which read as under:-
Statute 9(2)(d)
"2. xxx xxx xxx
(d) (i) Each Department shall have a Professor as its Head
provided that when in a Department there is only one Professor
or no Professor eligible to be the Head, a Reader may be
appointed as its Head and when there is no Professor or Reader
eligible to be the Head, the Dean of the Faculty concerned shall
act as the Head of the Department.
(ii) No person shall ordinarily be appointed or continue as the
Head of a Department on his attaining the age of sixty two years.
(iii) Subject as aforesaid, the duties and functions, terms and
conditions and method of appointment of the Head of a
Department shall be prescribed by the Ordinances."
Ord. XXIII. Heads of Departments
"1. The Head of the Department shall be appointed by the Vice-
Chancellor by observing, as far as possible, the principle of
rotation. Such appointments shall be reported to the Executive
Council.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1, if for any
reason it has not been possible to appoint a person as Head of the
Department who is senior to the person (persons) who has
already served or is serving as Head of the Department, it shall
be open to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint that person as Head of
the Department whenever a vacancy next occurs if he can
otherwise be so appointed.
3. The Head of the Department shall hold office for a period of
three years. A person shall not ordinarily be appointed as Head
of the Department for a second consecutive term."
QUALIFICATIONS OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS
4. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause-2,
pending the appointment of a Head of the Department or during
his absence on leave, the Vice-Chancellor may ask any Professor
or any Reader in the Department either to discharge the current
duties of the Head of the Department or to act as Head of the
Department, as the case may be, as a purely temporary measure.
Note: The Principle of rotation will apply from the persons who is next
in order of seniority to the person who has already served or is
serving as Head of the Department."
3. I put it to counsel for the petitioner as to where it is provided in
the Ordinance XXIII that it is only the senior most person who has
necessarily to be appointed as the Head of the Department, and to
which, counsel for the petitioner draws attention to sub-Ordinance (2)
of Ordinance XXIII above.
4. In my opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner
that only the senior most person can be appointed as the Head of the
Department is misconceived because the provision of Ordinance XXIII
gives entitlement to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint any person,
provided the principle of rotation is observed i.e one person cannot be
re-appointed unless there is no other person available and qualified for
being appointed as Head of the Department.
5. So far as sub-Ordinance (2) of Ordinance XXIII is concerned,
all that is provided is that there is an option given to the Vice-
Chancellor to consider the senior most person. Existence of an option
is much different from a compulsory statutory mandate for a senior
most person to be necessarily appointed as Head of the Department.
This provision does not say that only the senior most person should
compulsorily be appointed as the Head of the Department. Therefore,
the provisions quoted above do not support the petitioner that it is only
a senior most Professor who has to be necessarily appointed as Head of
the Department.
6. Counsel for the petitioner then urged that even if Vice-
Chancellor is entitled to take a decision under the aforesaid Statute and
Ordinance, however, that decision must be actuated by reason and
therefore petitioner has been wrongly overlooked as no reasons have
been given to the petitioner. In my opinion, since the decision in
question of appointing a Head of the Department is only an
administrative decision, and not a quasi judicial decision, principles of
natural justice do not have to be followed including of passing of a
speaking order communicating the reasons for appointing a particular
person and not appointing another person. Courts ordinarily do not
substitute themselves for the decisions taken by the administrative
authorities with respect to administrative decisions inasmuch as the
administrative authorities know best how the organization-public
institution is run. In an extreme case of clear cut malafides or some
other equally strong reason, Courts can step in, however, I do not find
that merely on the principle of the seniority being pleaded that
automatically strong grounds exist to question the administrative
decision for the reason that relevant Statute and Ordinance do not
require the senior most person to be appointed as the Head of the
Department.
7. Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 states that the
respondent no.1-University does not compulsorily follow any policy
that only the senior most person is appointed as Head of the
Department.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ
petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs."
4. The issue in the present case is the same and I am bound by the ratio
of the judgment given in the case of Prof. Sharda Sharma (supra), and
since I agree with the same, therefore there is no reason for this Court to
refer this case to the Larger Bench as is prayed for by the counsel for the
petitioner. In fact, in my opinion, administrative authorities must have
necessary leeway, and which is found in Ordinance XXIII of the respondent
no.1/University to appoint or not to appoint a person as the Head of the
Department because the Head of the Department is indeed an important
person from whom various aspects with respect to administration and
discipline flows.
5. So far as the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner by placing
reliance upon Statute 12 of the respondent no.1/University is concerned, a
reading of that Statute shows that a person can be appointed as a Dean of the
faculty, if firstly he is the Head of the Department, and in case a person is
not the Head of the Department, such a person obviously will have no
entitlement to be considered for being appointed as a Dean.
6. In view of the above, and the ratio laid down in the case of Prof.
Sharda Sharma (supra), merely because the petitioner is senior, he cannot
claim the appointment as the Head of the Department of Geology, and this
Court is ill-equipped to substitute its decision for that of the
department/authority for issuing a direction to appoint the petitioner as the
Head of the Department of Geology by quashing the appointment of the
respondent no.2 who has been so appointed.
7. Dismissed.
APRIL10, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
