Delhi High Court
Dr. Pushpendra Singh vs Delhi Technological University & ... on 11 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: November 23, 2017
Pronounced on: December 11, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2106/2016
DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr.Nilansh
Gaur, Advocates
versus
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Advocates for respondent
No.1
Ms. Swaty Singh Malik and Ms. Yaashna
Thakran, Advocates for respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. This is second round of litigation for petitioner. In the first round,
respondents were directed to convene a Board of Meeting, which held on
17th July, 2015, to consider giving personal hearing to the affected
faculty. As per impugned order of 29th February, 2016 (Annexure P-2),
petitioner was also given personal hearing regarding equivalence of his
qualification way back in the year 2012, when petitioner was selected as
Associate Professor in pursuance of Advertisement/Recruitment Notice
of 3rd December, 2011 (Annexure P-3). The essential experience as per
the aforesaid Advertisement/Recruitment Notice (Annexure P-3) for
being selected as Associate Professor was as under: -
06 years as Assistant Professor
OR
Equivalent with AGP `7,000/- and above in PB-3
OR
8 years of service as Assistant Professor with the AGP of
`6,000/- in the PB-3
2. Since petitioner possessed the aforesaid requisite relevant
experience, therefore, he was selected as Associate Professor and had
joined in July, 2012 and continued in the said position till 31st March,
2016. A Show-Cause Notice of 29th May, 2015 (Annexure P-1) was
issued to petitioner disclosing that he did not possess the mandatory
experience for the post of Associate Professor (Mechanical) at the time of
his selection. Petitioner had submitted his reply to it and thereafter, vide
impugned order (Annexure P-2), petitioner's appointment as Associate
Professor has been declared as void ab initio.
3. The challenge to impugned order by learned counsel for petitioner
is on the ground that petitioner had six years' experience as Assistant
Professor and so, he was qualified to be appointed as Associate Professor.
Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner's counsel to Notification of
22nd January, 2010 issued by All India Council for Technical Education
to point out that Lecturers already in service in Pre-Revised Scale of
`8,000-13,500 were re-designated as Associate Professor with Academic
Grade Pay (AGP) of `6,000/-. So, it is submitted that impugned order
deserves to be set aside and petitioner ought to be put back as Associate
Professor. Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon Supreme
Court's decisions in Prakash Chand Meena and Others v. State of
Rajasthan and Others (2015) 8 SCC 484 and Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L.
Ramesh and Others (2010) 8 SCC 372 to submit that once petitioner's
appointment as Assistant Professor has been duly approved by
respondents' Board of Management, then, after more than three years,
petitioner's appointment cannot be declared to be void ab initio as the
Rules or the Norms post Advertisement, cannot be applied now to declare
petitioner ineligible.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-University
supports impugned order and submits that since petitioner was not in the
Pre-Revised Scale of `8,000-13,500, therefore, services rendered by him
as a Lecturer cannot be equated with that of an Assistant Professor. It is
pointed out that when the Advertisement/Recruitment Notice (Annexure
P-3) was issued, the pay-scale of Assistant Professor was `15,600-39,100
with Grade Pay of `6,000/- and since the required teaching experience
was of 8 years with Grade Pay of `6,000/- and so, petitioner has been
rightly declared to be ineligible. Thus, dismissal of this petition is
sought.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 29 th February,
2016 (Annexure P-2), Advertisement/Recruitment Notice (Annexure P-3),
material on record and the decisions cited, I find that petitioner's
appointment as Associate Professor has been declared to be void ab initio
after a period of four years or so, by observing that he does not have
requisite teaching experience of eight years and that the teaching
experience of petitioner is of three years and one month and Industry
Experience is of two years and three months.
6. It is pertinent to note that the required experience for the post of
Associate Professor as per Advertisement/Recruitment Notice of 3rd
December, 2011 (Annexure P-3) is either of the three requirements. The
first requirement is six years' experience as Associate Professor and the
second alternative requirement is equivalence with AGP of `7,000/- and
above in PB-3 and the third alternative requirement is of 8 years' service
as Assistant Professor with the AGP of `6,000/- in the PB-3.
7. The Notification of 22nd January, 2010 issued by All India Council
for Technical Education clearly provides that Lecturers in Technical
Institutions shall be re-designated as Assistant Professor and shall be
placed in the Pay Band of `15,600-39,100 with Grade Pay of `6,000/-. In
impugned order itself, it is noted that petitioner has more than six years'
experience and therefore, as per the afore-referred first requirement, as
provided in the Advertisement/Recruitment Notice (Annexure P-3),
petitioner was qualified to be appointed on the post of Associate
Professor and so, it was accordingly done way back in the year 2012.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, impugned order requiring
eight years' experience for being appointed on the post of Associate
Professor, would not render petitioner's appointment as void ab initio as
the essential qualification(s) in the Advertisement/Recruitment Notice
(Annexure P-3) consists of either of the three requirements and the
petitioner is eligible as per the first requirement, as referred to above.
Thus, impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.
Resultantly, petitioner's appointment on the post of Associate Professor is
revived with all consequential benefits.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of, while leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 11, 2017
s
