The HC of Delhi was dealing with the petition to quash the Notification dated 10.06.2021 passed by the University of Delhi and declare that the petitioner is eligible for Headship and he should be appointed as Head of Department of Chemistry as per Ordinance XXIII of the University Calendar.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as Head of the Chemistry Department in University of Delhi. The petitioner is the is the senior-most Professor in the University. A complaint of sexual harassment was filed by a teacher with regard to certain professors including the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that warning is not a penalty under the Conduct Rules and as such, there is no bar for the University to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as an HoD.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned counsel for the state has submitted that in terms of Ordinance XXIII of the University, there is no compulsion to appoint the senior-most Professor if there are good valid reasons. He justifies the appointment of respondent No.3 as the Head of the Department, Chemistry, in view of the serious nature of the complaint made by the complainant. According to him, it is not a case of clear exoneration of the petitioner. Rather, a warning has been issued to the petitioner, which would disentitle him any consideration and also appointment as HoD of the Chemistry department.
HC’s observations:
The question before the HC was whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as HoD, Department of Chemistry. After the submissions made by both the parties the HC observed that in view of the communication dated October 01, 2021, based on the complaint made by the complainant, the decision of the Executive Council is that the petitioner be warned for the misconduct committed by him. The HC also found that it has also been decided that he shall not participate in the interview of the complainant in the future in order to maintain fairness in the selection process.
The HC stated that “Coincidingly, the petitioner has accepted the communication dated October 01, 2021 and not challenged the same in the Court of law. The conduct of a Professor as an HoD, who is required to involve himself in various activities of the Department, which includes interacting with the students and the teachers, need to be blemish-free. Ordinance XXIII of the University is very clear that it gives discretion to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint a Head of the Department.”
The Court relied upon the case of J.P. Shrivastava v. University of Delhi, where the Court has held that “though the Vice-Chancellor cannot overlook the seniority, but he can for good and valid reason, refuse to appoint a person as the Head of the Department.”
HC held:
The HC after evaluating various submissions made by both the parties held that “I did ponder on the issue, whether the matter need to be remanded back to the Vice-Chancellor for him to take a call in the given facts of this case, but in view of the above and the petitioner has not challenged the communication dated October 01, 2021, this Court is of the view that in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted.”
The HC dismissed the writ petition.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Case Title: Prof. R.K. Sharma v. University of Delhi and Ors.
Case Details: W.P.(C) 5961/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
