Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. Jyoti Jatav vs Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vaidic ... 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. 5984 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MS. JYOTI JATAV D/O RAMESH KUMAR JATAV, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASST. PROFESSOR
POLITICAL SCIENCE R/O POST MUKAM KOUNDIYA
MAHOBIYA MOHALLA TAHSIL GADARWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. VANDANA SHROTI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS CHANCELLOR
MCEE CAMPUS BERASIA ROAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
V I S H WAV I D YA L A YA , THROUGH ITS
CHANCELLOR MCEE CAMPUS BERASIA ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI OFFICE AT VILLAGE
KAROUNDI, POST UMARIAPAAN, DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR. MAHARISHI MAHESH
YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI
HEADQUARTER VILLAGE KAROUNDI, DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SUDHAKAR SINGH RAJPOOT, THE DIRECTOR,
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, SAGAR BYPASS ROAD,
Signature Not Verified
SAN NARSINGHPUR, R/O C-25, UTD CAMPUS, DR. HARI
SINGH GOUR CENTRAL UNIVERSITY SAGAR
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:48 IST
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
6. SHRI ARVIND SINGH RAJPOOT, THE REGISTRAR,
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI HAVING ITS HEAD
OFFICE AT KAROUNDI, POST UMARIAPAAN,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SMT. NAMITA PATHAK, THE
DIRECTOR(ACADEMIC) MAHARISHI MAHESH
YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI HAVING
ITS HEAD OFFICE AT KAROUNDI, POST
UMARIAPAAN, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. DR. ASHOK SINGH CHOUHAN,THE DEPUTY
REGISTRAR, MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI HAVING ITS HEAD
OFFICE AT KAROUNDI, POST UMARIAPAAN,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. DR. MUKESH GOYAL, HOD OF COMMERCE
D EPARTM EN T, MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI
VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI HAVING ITS
HEAD OFFICE AT KAROUNDI, POST
UMARIAPAAN, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. DR. SHRIPAL CHOUHAN, HOD OF SOCIAL
SCIENCE DEPARTMENT MAHARISHI MAHESH
YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI HAVING
ITS HEAD OFFICE AT KAROUNDI, POST
UMARIAPAAN, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11. SHRI ANAND NANDVANI, ASST. PROFESSOR
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, KATNI HAVING ITS HEAD
OFFICE AT KAROUNDI, POST UMARIAPAAN,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
12. THE THANA INCHARGE, POLICE STATION
SCHEDULE CAST AND SCHEDULE TRIBE MADAV
NAGAR, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KATNI
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MADHAV NAGAR, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
.....RESPONDENTS
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:48 IST
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
DEEPAK SAHUSHRI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4, SHRI
3
SANTOSH KUMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 6, 7, 8 & 10 AND
SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 12 & 13)
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
20.02.2023, served upon petitioner through registered post on 23.02.2023
(Annx.P/1), by which respondents refused to extend the period of contract and
in lieu of notice, issued a Demand Draft No.179059 dated 20.02.2023, for a sum
of Rs.16,050/-, 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
copy of the appointment order, impugned order Annx.P/1 came to be passed.
Her second grievance is that she 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN to not to renew the contract.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:48 IST
4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision in Mrs. Kirti Bugde (supra),
learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to refer it in even two other
cases though she has not filed this document, it is pointed out that on page 30
of Annx.P/2, 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.4. She 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
terminated. In that backdrop, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that " the
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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
UGC are binding even on private Universities.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:48 IST
7. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4
and Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No.7, 8, 9 & 10, 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
his services any further. Copy of this note sheet is taken on record.
8. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that Vice Chancellor
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, that petitioner Ms. Jyoti Jatav
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
o rd er showing that she was regularly recruited on the post of Assistant
Professor and that the person concerned fulfills all the requirements as
Signature Not Verified
SAN
envisaged by the UGC for such appointment as if a person is appointed dehors
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, then that may call for an action
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:48 IST
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 of 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 she 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 quashing of the
impugned order Annx.P/1 only on the ground that Deputy 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 she 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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
whether to extend the contract or not, there is no infirmity in the impugned
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:48 IST
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 18:46:48 IST
