Dr. Babu Lal Dayma vs Jai Narayan Vyas University
2021 Latest Caselaw 19083 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16609/2021

Dr. Babu Lal Dayma S/o Late Shri Mangi Lal Dayma, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of University Banglow No. 1, Residency Road, Gaurav Path, Jodhpur

----Petitioner Versus

1. Jai Narayan Vyas University, Through Registrar, Development Section Jodhpur.

2. Dr. Aman Singh Sisodiya S/o Om Singh Sisodiya, R/o E-

329, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni-I, Jodhpur.

3. Vice Chancellor, Jai Narain Vyas University, Department Of Physical Education, Jodhpur.

4. President, Board Of Sports, Jai Narain University, Jodhpur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Mehta.

Mr. Tarun Dudia.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepesh Singh Beniwal.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

15/12/2021

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by

order dated 09.04.2021, the petitioner was appointed as

Secretary, Board of Sports, which position is governed by

Ordinance 336.

Further submissions have been made regarding the working

of the Board of Sports and certain communications exchanged by

the petitioner & Vice Chancellor and the communication made by

the Vice Chancellor seeking petitioner's credentials and ultimately,

passing of the order dated 22.11.2021, whereby exercising

(2 of 4) [CW-16609/2021]

powers under Section 12(5) of the Jai Narain Vyas University,

Jodhpur Act, 1962 ('the Act'), the petitioner has been removed as

Secretary, Board of Sports.

Submissions have been made that the order dated

22.11.2021 is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch

as, before passing of the said order, no opportunity of hearing was

granted to the petitioner at any point of time and therefore, the

order impugned deserves to be set-aside.

As the University had appeared on caveat and time was

granted to file reply, a detailed response has been filed by the

University.

Learned counsel for the respondent - University made

submissions that the Vice Chancellor has exercised power under

Section 12(5) of the Act, which are emergency powers wherein he

can take such action as deemed appropriate and against the said

action an appeal lies to the Syndicate and the Syndicate thereafter

can afford opportunity to the affected person and therefore, as the

statute provides for a post decisional hearing, the fact that the

petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before

passing of the order dated 22.11.2021, is of no consequence.

Reliance has been placed on judgment in Swadeshi Cotton

Mills v. UOI : (1981) 1 SCC 664.

Further submissions have been made based on the material

produced on record to indicate that the conduct of the petitioner,

since over three years and in the past wherein he was earlier also

Secretary of the Board of Sports and during the period when he

was again appointed as Secretary of the Board of Sports by order

dated 09.04.2021 was such that it was hampering day to day

(3 of 4) [CW-16609/2021]

functioning of the Board and as such, the University for that

reason had no other alternative but to remove the petitioner.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties.

Apparently, the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act has no

application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the Vice

Chancellor himself is the appointing authority of the Secretary of

the Board under Ordinance 336(4)(ii) of the Ordinance. Section

12(5) of the Act is meant for conferring emergency powers on the

Vice Chancellor, wherein the officer, authority or body in ordinary

course would be different for taking the action, which is deemed

necessary by the Vice Chancellor to take, however, as the Vice

Chancellor himself is the appointing authority of the Secretary of

the Board, the said provision has no application.

Once, the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act has no

application, the appellate provision provided under Section 12(6)

of the Act in relation to exercise power under Section 12(5) of the

Act would also be of no application.

Apparently, from the record after 09.04.2021 since the

petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the Board, there is no

material available on record to indicate that any point of time the

petitioner was made aware of his purported actions resulting in

obstruction of day to day functioning of the Board.

Time was granted to counsel for the University to produce

any such material informing the petitioner about the said aspect,

which also has not been produced.

In the circumstances of the case, the matter requires

consideration, therefore, admit. Issue notice.

(4 of 4) [CW-16609/2021]

As Mr. D.S. Beniwal has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1,

3 & 4, issue notice to the respondent No.2 only, returnable within

a period of four weeks.

In the meanwhile and till further orders, effect & operation of

the order dated 22.11.2021 (Annex.18) shall remain stayed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

182-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)