Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. (Mrs.) Kusum Arunachalam And ... vs Doon University And Others on 1 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
01ST SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 402 OF 2023
Dr. (Mrs.) Kusum Arunachalam and others.
...Petitioners
Versus
Doon University and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners. : Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Shubhang
Dobhal, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 4. : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent no. 6. : Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 7. : Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The petitioners have preferred the present
Writ Petition to seek the following reliefs :-
"i. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of
declaration, or quo-warranto against the
respondent No.5 showing his authority to hold the
post of Associate Professor of the Don University,
Dehradun and to remove him forthwith from the
post of Associate Professor and declare his
appointment as illegal, arbitrary, Unconstitutional
and against the statuary provisions as per UGC
mandate and based on fraud and every action or
decision taken by him be declared as avoid, ab
initio, illegal and nullity with all consequential
effects keeping in view the facts highlighted in the
body of petition after calling the entire record
from the respondents along with its effect and
operation also, keeping in view the facts
highlighted in the body of the petition or to mould
the relief appropriately.
ii. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding to the respondents not
to give any further promotion/or to assign any
post to the private respondent no.5 of Professor
or any post involves a high position or
responsibility and authorization for taking any
policy decision
iii. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus to fix the responsibility of EC members
for taking the decision against law and allowing an
ineligible person to continue to hold the post of
Associate Professor despite the fact that Enquiry
Committee has given clear cut recommendations
that respondent no. 5 in not eligible to hold the
post of Associate professor.
iv. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the UGC to take all steps for
monitoring every appointment and every policy
decision of the Doon University and its officers
and to verify the same whether the same fulfils
the UGC norm or not also to ensure that UGC
Grant shall not be misuse or misutilized by any
unauthorized persons, keeping in view the facts
highlighted in the body of the petition.
v. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of
mandamus to direct the respondent to setup an
inquiry through an independent agency under the
monitoring of the Hon'ble Court to find out the
persons responsible for such type of illegal act
and to fix the liability upon the same and also to
recover the public money from the erring
persons."
2. The present Writ Petition has been preferred
by the petitioners on the premise that respondent no. 5,
2
against whom this Writ Petition is directed, was
appointed in July, 2010 on the post of Associate
Professor in the Doon University, allegedly in
contravention of the UGC Rule for counting of past
services.
3. The petitioners claim that on the day of his
appointment, respondent no. 5 was not eligible to be
appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, because he
was not having the mandatory UGC NET qualification.
After seven long years of the appointment of respondent
no. 5, the petitioners approached the University, and
this Court. This Court directed the Chancellor to resolve
the complaint expeditiously. The petitioners state that,
in continuation of the said direction, the University
Administration constituted a three member Inquiry
Committee, and one Fact Finding Committee, comprising
of the Executive Council, Members, Registrar and an
Officer of the UGC. A report was submitted to the
Executive Council, which, in its 26th Meeting, passed a
resolution against respondent no. 5.
4. The petitioners further state that the
Executive Council, in its meeting held on 07th - 08th
3
June, 2017, considered the findings of the reports
aforesaid, and took a lenient view of the matter,
considering the age of respondent no. 5, and
unanimously resolved to reduce the rank of respondent
no. 5 from Associate Professor to Assistant Professor.
The petitioners state that respondent no. 5 challenged
the said decision by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 403 of
2017 before this Court, and this Court quashed and set
aside Order No. 492/221/R-DU/2017 dated 19.07.2017,
reducing the rank of respondent no. 5 from Associate
Professor to Assistant Professor. Consequently, the
Executive Council, in its meeting held on 16.01.2019,
restored the rank of respondent no. 5 and reinstated
him in the post of Associate Professor.
5. Pertinently, when the order dated 22.10.2018
was passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B)
No. 403 of 2017, the petitioners herein were also
present. The petitioners herein had moved an
application for intervention, which the Division Bench did
not allow.
6. In the aforesaid background, it appears to us
that the present Writ Petition is a complete abuse of the
4
process of the Court. The petitioners were represented
before this Court, when the order dated 22.10.2018 was
passed, restoring the rank of respondent no. 5. The
issue, whether the initial appointment of respondent no.
5 was as Associate Professor, fell for consideration
before the Court. The Court - despite the said issue
being raised, allowed the Writ Petition, and did not find
merit in the submission of the petitioners herein. If the
petitioners herein had any grievance against the order
dated 22.10.2018, it was open to the petitioners to
assail the said order before the Supreme Court. In our
view, the petitioners are again seeking to rake up the
same old issues, with regard to the experience earned
by respondent no. 5, for the post in question.
7. Pertinently, it is not the petitioners' case that
respondent no. 5 did not have any past teaching
experience. The only issue raised by the petitioners,
was with regard to the nature of the said teaching
experience, namely, that it was earned on ad hoc basis,
and not on regular basis. In our view, with the passage
of time, that issue has now lost its significance.
5
8. We, therefore, dismiss the present Writ
Petition, leaving the parties to bear their respective
costs.
9. Consequently, pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of accordingly.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_____________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 01ST SEPTEMBER, 2023
Rahul
