Delhi High Court
Dr. Mallarika Sinha Roy And Ors. vs Jawaharlal Nehru University And ... on 27 February, 2019
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 27th February, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 6855/2018 & C.M.APPLN. 2309/2019
DR. MALLARIKA SINHA ROY AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Ranvir Singh, Adv. with
Mr.Rahul Chaprana, Adv.
versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Ms.Monika Arora, Standing counsel
with Mr.Harsh Ahuja, Mr.Kushal
Kumar & Mr.Praveen Singh, Advs.
with Mr.Naveen (officer) for JNU.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The main prayer in the present petition is to quash and set aside orders
dated 19.12.2016, 16.03.2017, 05.04.2017, 24.08.2017, 19.09.2017 and
01.06.2018 whereby the term of the petitioners as Wardens of the various
hostels has been expired.
2. Annexure P-10 speaks about the terms of the wardens in some other
cases where Dr.Ram Nath Jha has been warden of Sutlej hostel for 16 years,
Dr.Sunita Reddy of Godavari hostel for 14 years, Dr.Rajan Kumar of
Narmada hostel for 12 years, Dr.Mahesh Ranjan Dabatta of Narmada hostel
for 8 years and Dr.Pratima Solanki the warden of Shipra hostel for 6 years
and the petitioners remain for the period as mentioned in the below table.
CHART
Sl. Name Date of Date of Termination
No. Appointment Truncated Date
as Warden Renewal
(Duration)
1 Dr.Mallarika Sinha 13.12.2012 19.12.2016 19.02.2018
Roy (1 Year) (Letter
(Petitioner No.1) received)
2 Dr.A. Bimol Akoijam 22.02.2013 21.02.2017 23.02.2018
(Petitioner No.2) (1 Year) (Letter
received)
3 Prof. Sujoy 13.12.2012 02.01.2017 19.02.2018
Chakravarty (1 Year) (Letter
(Petitioner No.3) received)
4 Dr.Himanshu 28.12.2012 NO 19.02.2018
(Petitioner No.4) EXTENSION (Letter
received)
5 Dr.Rohit 13.10.2015 12.10.2017 12.04.2018
(Petitioner No.5) (6 Months) (Letter
received)
6 Dr.Rajarshi Dasgupta 01.07.2013 01.07.2017 30.05.2018
(Petitioner No.6) (1 Year) (Letter
received)
3. As per the said table, petitioner no.1 remained as warden from
13.12.2012 to 19.02.2018, petitioner no.2 from 22.02.2013 to 23.02.2018,
petitioner no.3 from 13.12.2012 to 19.02.2018, petitioner no.4 from
28.12.2012 to 19.02.2018, petitioner no.5 from 13.10.2015 to 12.04.2018
and petitioner no.6 from 01.07.2013 to 30.05.2018 of respective hostels.
4. It is not in dispute that as per the academic ordinance which is
updated upto 01.01.2016, the period of a warden is for two years in the first
instance and the said period is renewable on the recommendation of the
Provost to the Dean of Students. However, the Vice Chancellor may
terminate the assignment of the wardens by giving atleast one month's
notice.
5. After receiving the communication dated 19.02.2018, 23.02.2018,
19.02.2018, 12.04.2018 and 30.05.2018, the petitioners herein protested on
the ground that some wardens as mentioned above, remained 8 years to 16
years as wardens. At last, they filed the present petition for the directions
mentioned above.
6. It is not in dispute that the final authority is the Vice Chancellor to
renew the tenure of the wardens and is not bound by the recommendation of
the Provost and the Dean. Since on the recommendation of the Provost, as
per the history of the JNU, the Vice Chancellor in majority of cases agreed
to extend the tenure of the warden, so the petitioners had also hoped that the
recommendation of the Provost would be accepted by the Vice Chancellor.
Therefore, they continued in the respective hostels and protested the issue
before this Court and the authority as well.
7. It is also not in dispute that during the pendency of the present
petition, all the petitioners except petitioner no.2 have vacated the premises
of the wardens occupied by them but the respondents imposed penal market
rent upon the petitioners.
8. Ms.Monika Arora, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in
the communication dated 01.06.2018, it was mentioned as under:
"1.5 The Wardens for Hostels shall be appointed by the
Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the Provost to
the Dean of Students for a period of two years in the first
instance. The term would be renewable on the
recommendation of the Provost to the Dean of Students.
The Vice-Chancellor may, however, terminate the
assignment of the Warden by giving at least one month's
notice.
The meeting noted that all the petitioner Wardens have
been given extensions for one or two tenures. In their
interaction with the Vice-Chancellor, Rectors, Dean of
Students, they were told that it was time to have a new
team of Wardens and that further renewal of their terms
was not possible. They were communicated about this.
But these Wardens have not vacated the Warden's Flats
so far, even though new Wardens have been appointed.
The new wardens are discharging their duties but still
waiting for taking possession of Wardens's Flats.
After considering all the aspects of the Petitioner's
representation in the aforesaid meeting, it was pointed
out that the power to appoint Wardens and extension of
their tenures is vested with the Vice-Chancellor. The
Wardens appointed for a fixed them do not have any right
to continue against the tenure positions indefinitely."
9. Despite above, the petitioners continued in the accommodation of the
wardens of respective hostels, thereafter the respondents imposed penal rent
upon the petitioners.
10. As mentioned above, all the petitioners have already vacated the
premises except petitioner no.2 who had some personal and serious
difficulty in the family, however, he has given undertaking on 24.12.2018
that he will be shifting out of the wardens accommodation by the end of
January 2019 without fail on the high hope that he would get another
accommodation in the University Campus for which he is otherwise eligible
and entitle. However, the respondents have not published any list in this
regard.
11. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner
is ready to vacate the accommodation and seek one month time due to the
terminal illness of the family members.
12. Petitioner no.2 is personally present in the Court who has given
undertaking before this Court that he shall vacate the accommodation in
question within one month from today.
13. Since in past, on the recommendation of the Provost, the extension of
warden was normally extended by few exceptions, therefore, the petitioners
had high hope that their tenure will not be terminated and they will get the
extension for the post of warden, therefore, they continued in the
accommodation in question.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact
that this type of issue has come up before the university first time, therefore,
I am of the considered view that the respondents should have large heart
being petitioners their own professors and the penal rent imposed upon the
petitioners may not be recovered from them.
15. Accordingly, I hereby dispose of the present petition directing the
petitioner no.2 to vacate the accommodation in question and direct the
respondents not to recover the penal market rent from the petitioners.
16. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
17. I hereby make it clear that if the petitioner no.2 does not vacate the
premises within the time as per the undertaking, he shall be liable to pay
penal rent as per the market rent.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
ab
