Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Patel vs Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic ... on 12 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 16416 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ABHISHEK PATEL S/O SHRI NARENDRA SINGH PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST.
PROFESSOR R/O VILLAGE MANIWARI, POST KAPURI,
TAHSIL KARELI, DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. VANDANA SHROTI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS VICE
CHANCELLOR MCEE CAMPUS BERSIA ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA A BODY INCORPORATED
UNDERTHE PROVISIONS OF MAHARISHI
MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDAYALAYA
ADHINIYAM 1995 THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILLAGE KAROUNDI
POST UMARIAPAAN DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINISTRATION
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR OFFICE LAMTI VIJAY
NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI
VAIDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE LAMTI VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN 5. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
BYPASS ROAD NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
S E C R E TA R Y VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHRI B.K. SHUKLA DEPUTY REGISTRAR
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINSTRATION OFFICE
LAMTI VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. SMT. NAMITA PATHAK DEPUTY REGISTRAR
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINSTRATION OFFICE
LAMTI VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. DR. ASHOK SINGH CHOUHAN DEPUTY
REGISTRAR MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA VILLAGE KAROUNDI POST
UMARIAPAAN DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
DEEPAK SAHU - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 AND SHRI
SANTOSH KUMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.8 & 9)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved of order dated
31.05.2022, by which respondents refused to extend the period of contract and
in lieu of notice, issued a Demand Draft No.943534 dated 31.05.2022, for a sum
of Rs.11,400/-, towards one month's salary in lieu of notice and informed the
petitioner that his temporary contract employment has come to an end.
2. Petitioner has raised two grievances, namely, when petitioner asked for
Signature Not Verified
SAN copy of the appointment order, impugned order Annx.P/1 came to be passed.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST His second grievance is that he has been working continuously with the
respondents-authorities and impugned order Annx.P/1, is passed by the Deputy
Registrar of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidhyalaya, whereas, the
authority vests in the Board of Management.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order of Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No.4242/2015 (Mrs. Kirti Bugde
W/o Shri Pankaj Bugde), dated 07.11.2016, wherein, Coordinate Bench held
that the Management should ensure that they have Conduct Rules and
Disciplinary Service Rules in the institution for their staff contemplated in their
bye-laws and placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that in absence of
any Rules or Regulations, no steps could have been taken by the respondents
to not to renew the contract.
4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision in Mrs. Kirti Bugde (supra),
learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to refer to in even two other
cases though she has not filed this document, it is pointed out that on page 30
of Annx.P/2 (in Writ Petition No.5984/2023, decided today itself), documents
which were submitted by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidhyalaya
to the competent authority for National Assessment Accreditation Council,
Bungalore, name of the petitioner is mentioned at Serial No.19. He has been
shown to be a full time regular teacher and, therefore, this contention of the
respondents that petitioner is a contractual employee, is factually incorrect.
5. The judgment which is cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of
Mrs. Kirti Bugde (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case,
inasmuch as, in that case petitioner was appointed to a school. Her provident
fund was deducted and her services were temporary. Thereafter, she was
Signature Not Verified
SAN
terminated. In that backdrop, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that " the
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
educational institutions are running like industry with huge infrastructure like
five star facilities but there is no service conditions available to their staff." It
further observed that under such circumstances, "statutory benefits like
Provident Fund, Medical facility, leave etc., which is admissible to the
Government Teachers are being denied to them, therefore, CGSE and BOSE
should ensure that before granting affiliation, they should ensure that there
should be conduct rules and disciplinary service rules in the institution for
their staff contemplated in their bye-laws."
6. However, facts of the present case are different. Respondent-University is
imparting higher education. Higher education is regulated by a regulatory body,
namely, University Grants Commission (UGC). Regulations framed by the
UGC are binding even on private Universities.
7. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4
and Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No. 8 & 9, in their
turn, submit that the impugned order is though signed by the Deputy Registrar,
but there is a specific mention of it being issued 'by order'. Respondents'
counsel have produced original note sheet dated 19.04.2022, which was initiated
by the Deputy Registrar (Academics), signed by the Deputy Registrar
(Administration), Head of the Department, Director (Education), Registrar of
the University and also the Vice Chancelllor of the University, in which it is
mentioned that services of the petitioner were taken on contract basis. He
worked on contract basis for several years, but he does not fulfill the
educational qualification prescribed under UGC Regulations 2018, as a result,
with the permission of the Registrar, a decision can be taken to not to continue
Signature Not Verified
SAN
his services any further. Copy of this note sheet is taken on record.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
8. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that Vice Chancellor
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
can exercise authority of Board of Management.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought on record copy of the
appointment order to demonstrate that petitioner was ever appointed on regular
basis after due approval of the Board of Management.
10. Thus, as is apparent from the note sheet dated 13.4.2022, that petitioner
Abhishek Patel did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed in the regulations, a
decision was taken to discontinue the contractual employment, then that cannot
be faulted with. In fact, petitioner has failed to bring on record copy of an
appointment order showing that she was regularly recruited on the post of
Assistant Professor and that the person concerned fulfills all the requirements as
envisaged by the UGC for such appointment as if a person is appointed dehors
the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, then that may call for an action
against the University itself by the regulatory body, namely, UGC and when
tested in light of this, then impugned order deciding to not to continue the
contract employment of the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
11. Taking this fact into consideration that petitioner was found to be not
having necessary qualifications as per the UGC Regulations, an order for
discontinuance on his contractual appointment was taken by the Vice
Chancellor of the University in consultation with other officers of the University
mentioned above and when this Court specifically asked learned counsel for the
petitioner that what is the educational qualification of the petitioner and whether
he fulfills the requirements of the UGC Regulations, she is not able to answer
this query, but only submits that respondents No. 7 and 9 have accepted that
they do not have any authority to issue order Annx.P/1 and again prays for
Signature Not Verified
SAN
quashing of the impugned order Annx.P/1 only on the ground that Deputy
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
Registrar has no authority, this Court is of the opinion that this argument has no
substance.
12. The fact of the matter is that decision has been taken by the Vice
Chancellor in consultation with different authority including Director and the
Head of the Department on proposal being mooted by the Registrar
concerned. Thus, merely issuance of an order by the Deputy Registrar by
orders of the Vice Chancellor, cannot be said to be an order passed by the
Deputy Registrar to declare it to be illegal or non est.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when petitioner is not in
a position to dispute the fact that he does not possess the necessary
qualifications as per the UGC Regulations and, moreover, when the
appointment is contractual and it is for the authorities to mutually decide
whether to extend the contract or not, there is no infirmity in the impugned
order.
14. Accordingly, petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
