Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dr Sangeeta Bagga Mehta vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 19 April, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.60/651/2022
Pronounced on: 19.04.2024
(Reserved on 03.04.2024)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Sangeeta Bagga Mehta w/o Sh. Rajiv Kumar Mehta, Aged
53 years, Working as Professor, Chandigarh College of
Architecture, Sector 12, Chandigarh and Resident of H. No.
5028, Sector 12, Chandigarh. (Group 'A')
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Rohit Seth).
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator, Union
Territory, Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh PIN-160009,
[email protected]
2. Secretary Technical Education, U.T. Chandigarh,
Chandigarh Administration, Sector 9, Chandigarh, PIN-
160009 [email protected]
3. Kapil Setia, Chief Architect, U.T. Chandigarh, Department
of Urban Planning, Chandigarh Administration, Sector-9,
Chandigarh PIN-160009
4. Registrar, Registrar's Office, Administrative Block, Dewan
Anand Kumar Hall, Panjab University, Sector 14,
Chandigarh, U.T. 160014. E-mail: [email protected]
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Ravi K. Deshpandey, Sr. Advocate along with
Sh. Arvind Moudgil, Sh. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Sh. A.
K. Premi).
2
ORDER
PER: RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present original application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief:-
(i) Quash Order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) vide which the additional charge for the post of Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh given to the applicant vide Order dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure A-8) has been withdrawn and assigned allegedly on interim basis to the Private Respondent by reviewing the Order dated 21.09.2017 issued in respect of the applicant in an illegal, arbitrary manner without any power and authority to review earlier order and the order is punitive and the same is based on internal enquiries into the complaints filed by two faculty members who are habitual complainants raising same allegation since year 2017 in which enquiry was conducted by High Powered Committee and no substance was found and against whom departmental actions have been initiated / concluded on briefing by applicant as Principal.
(ii) Direct the Respondents to allow the applicant continue to work as Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh till the regular appointment is made subject to the work and conduct of the applicant, being the senior most Professor with PhD and fully qualified and eligible to hold the post AND FURTHER DIRECT the respondents to get the post of Principal CCA filled on permanent basis by under taking the 3 process of finalising the Recruitment Rules within a time bound manner.
2. Facts of the case, as per the applicant, are as follows. The applicant did her Bachelor of Architecture with Distinction in year 1991, Master of Architecture-1993 in Urban Design (M.Arch) from School of Planning and Architecture at New Delhi. She worked as Research Associate in Chandigarh College of Architecture from 18.10.1993 to 13.08.1996 and then as Research Associate in School of Planning and Architecture at New Delhi from 14.08.1996 to 21.04.1998. Then, she worked as Lecturer in Architecture at Meera Bai Polytechnic, NCT of Delhi under Directorate of Training and Technical Education selected through UPSC from 22.04.1998 to 24.12.1999. Subsequently, she was selected and appointed as Lecturer (Architecture) in the scale of Rs.8000-13500 at Chandigarh College of Architecture through UPSC. The applicant on completion of 5 years of service was placed in the Senior Scale and thereafter, on 27.12.1999 after 5 years was placed as Assistant Professor in pay scale of Rs.12000-18300 on 27.12.2009. Vide order dated 25.2.2014 respondents counted past service of applicant and accordingly the applicant was promoted as lecturer Senior Scale on 22.4.2003 and (Assistant Professor) and Selection Grade on 22.4.2008 in the Chandigarh College of Architecture from retrospective 4 dates. Vide Order dated 3.10.2014 the applicant was promoted as Associate Professor in the pay scale of 37,400-67,000 with AGP of 9000/- w.e.f. 22.04.2011 on the recommendations of the Screening cum Evaluation Committee as per AICTE Regulations 2010 dated 05.03.2010. Vide Endst, No. 10/5/65-IH(2)/4327 dated 01/03/2016 the applicant was promoted as Professor in the pay scale of 37400-67000 with AGP 10,000/- on the recommendations of the Screening cum Evaluation Committee again under the provision of the AICTE Regulations 2010 w.e.f. 22.4.2014.
3. As per the AICTE guidelines dated 5th March, 2010 no person could be appointed, promoted or designated as Professor unless he or she possesses a Ph.D and satisfies other academic conditions. However, Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhagat, an Associate Professor, a non-PhD had been given the charge as Acting Principal in year 2009 being the senior most faculty Member in CCA. The then Acting Principal was casting aspersions on the applicant and misleading the Administration with frivolous complaints challenging her PhD from Panjab University, challenging her promotions etc to ensure she never becomes Professor and his blue eyed man Sohan Lal Saharan becomes Acting Principal. He sent dissent note dated 17 November 2015 to the Administrator UT against consideration and promotion of Applicant as Professor followed by yet another complaint to the 5 Administrator UT dated 21.11.16 and similarly worded complaint was given by Sohanlal Saharan, Associate Professor. The sister of the than Acting Principal Mrs Snehlata Kumar IAS Retd. wrote to the MHA challenging the degrees and promotions of the applicant vide her complaint dated 15.12.2016.
4. To examine these complaints a Three Member High Powered Committee comprising of Home Secretary, Secretary Vigilance & Personnel and Secretary Technical Education, U.T was formed by the Adviser UT to look into the matter. The Committee deliberated into all the issues and sent a report, vide No. 10/5/76-IH(2)-2017/6233 dated 23/03/2017 to MHA, finding no merit in allegations. Clarification was also sought from AICTE and vide its reply dated 16.02.2017 the AICTE invited attention to Gazette notification dated 06.01.2016 to be read at Sr.No.30 at page no.26 wherein the "experience of Professor upgraded through CAS and those directly recruited shall be the same for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Principal". Speaking order dated 26.07.2017 was passed by Secretary Technical Education stating that the Special Committee having considered the whole issue and finding no merit has recommended filing the complaints with submission of report to MHA with a request to convey approval and submitted that promotion of Sangeeta Bagga to post of 6 Principal CCA can be considered only after approval of MHA.
5. Since issue of Seniority was also duly settled, therefore being the senior most faculty in the CCA vide order dated 21.09.2017 applicant was given Additional Charge of Principal CCA. With the post the Principal she got higher status, responsibility, better official Accommodation Earmarked house of PCCA residence, Official Car & Driver. According to the applicant, the vested interest in the institution were not able to tolerate a Principal at the helm of affairs, who with her qualifications, and research background was leading the institution in a smooth and efficient way which showcased exponential growth of the institution and its presence and visibility as a centre for imparting architectural education at national and international fronts with the support of the contractual faculty and few permanent faculty members. These non performing faculty members namely Sh. Sohanlal Saharan, Sh. J.P Singh with continuing connivance having the same motive, to divest the applicant of the charge of Principal, started a campaign of malicious complaints against the her promotions, instigated other Faculty to sign similar complaints directly at the highest level in the administration and even the PMO flouting and throwing to the winds all the Conduct Rules, digressing protocols of correspondence in the lines of hierarchy. Interestingly 7 enough complaints though repeated were entertained and they were never warned. Beginning in year 2020, this practice continued unabashedly and grew uncurbed with every change of guard at the level of the Technical Education Secretary, Addl. Secretary, Joint Secretary, Adviser and even Administrator, so much so that each new officer upon assuming office was flooded with complaints on earlier decided issues even though the same had been examined and filed time and again and at the highest level in the Chandigarh Administration and even the CVC and the MHA. These contain the same malcontent with each time only a new date and no change in the content. 24 number of such complaints are available which have the same content, matter and language as well as repeat the same issues that were raised in complaints dated 17.11.2015 and 21.11.2016 by Sh. Pradeep Bhagat the then Acting Principal before she tookover charge, his sister Snehlata Kumar Retd. IAS, and Sohanlal Saharan Associate Professor. Each time there was a complaint sent by these two malicious faculty members, the same was forwarded by the Technical Education department to the applicant for her parawise, annotated detailed comments and precious time of the office and personal time of the applicant was wasted in sending the same reply again and again while the very vital issues raised by her were kept as it is and 8 gathered dust in the Technical Education Branch of the Secretariat.
6. The applicant has submitted that the two faculty members have used this modus operandi in a two pronged way; first to cause mental harassment to the applicant and second to craftily use this modus operandi to take the Administration's attention off and focus away from their own ongoing enquiries and recovery matters. Sh. J.P. Singh Associate Professor has been punished by the Adviser UT for his misbehaviour, misconduct and warned to be careful in future and secondly he has been again punished and one increment has been stopped for his misbehaviour, misconduct and financial impropriety. Sh. Saharan has been served a Notice of Recovery for availing one year leave salary and non completion of PhD amounting to rupees thirty two lacs by the Secretary technical Education. Most recent complaints for which again the Secretary has sought for comments pertaining to main content of D.O. Letter dated. 17.05.2022 received from the Principal Secretary to Governor Panjab, and Administrator UT, Chandigarh on the subject cited above and Office Memo No. 8153 and 8152 dated 30.05.2022 vide which representations received from Shri Sohanlal Saharan have been forwarded. A bare perusal of the representations shows that they are also on the same old mischievous and malicious subject. Each time the complaint adds one more 9 point to make it appear new and different but upon perusal of the same it is only the old wine in new bottle with the undercurrent being the discontentment and hostility towards a well qualified faculty member heading the institution, her achievements earned through shear hard work which are maliciously portrayed as wrongful and illegal. The applicant being true to her responsibility and having complete faith in the Chandigarh Administration submitted reply from time to time in person.
7. According to applicant, the main habitual complainant Sh.
Sohanlal joined CCA as Assistant Professor with only B. Arch qualification in year 2001 and was wrongly re- designated as Associate Professor in AGP 9,000/- w.e.f 01.01.2006 even though he did not possess the mandatory M. Arch qualification as per faculty norms of AICTE 05.03.2010. He completed his M. Arch only in 2012. The faculty norms as per AICTE notification 05.03.2010 for Associate Professor and Professor B. Arch and M. Arch are essential qualifications for consideration for the post of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor and PhD is compulsory for the consideration for the post of Professor. The above mentioned qualifications have been in force since 2001 and contained in all AICTE CAS notifications duly adopted by Chandigarh Administration. Locus standi of Sh. Saharan to hold the redesignation of Associate Professor w.e.f. 01.01.2006 has been nullified with the 10 latest judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being Special Leave Petition (Civil) SLP No. 1917/2021 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02.02.2021 in OPKAT No.236/2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) in case titled 'Dr. Priyadarsini & ORS Versus The State of Kerala & Ors.', the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 02.02.2021 has held as under: "We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners at length. We are in agreement with the view that the notification dated 18.02.2003 granting to acquire PhD. Degree for the right to hold the post of Associate Professors would come to an end in 2010 and thus persons who acquire the PhD. Degree on a subsequent date will only be eligible for consideration from the date when they acquire PhD. Degree".
8. Sh. Sohanlal Saharan enrolled for PhD in 2012 at BITS Mesra, and was granted 12 months study leave to finalise his PhD research work but till date he could not complete PhD. Notice of Recovery has been issued to Sh.
Saharan vide Administration Memo No: P-
10923/IH(16)/2021/3115 dated 10.11.2021. The amount of double the leave salary to the tune of over thirty two lacs is pending for deposit and causing enormous loss to the government exchequer.
9. Between then (2017) and now, no new appointments, promotions which could lead to change in the present 11 status have been made by the Chandigarh Administration. Despite this repeated claims of being Senior with respect to the applicant continue from Sh. Saharan. He has filed an OA No. 107 of 2021 in CAT challenging the Seniority List issued by the Competent Authority while also seeking relief prayed to divest the applicant from charge of Principal. The Personnel Department UT has also advised on the matter vide U.O. No.27/279-IH (7)-2021/2892 dated 09.03.2021, Seniority can only be applied between individuals who are holding similar posts. The issue of Seniority cannot be considered between individuals who are holding posts with different nomenclature- eg. Between Assistant Professor and Associate Professor and Associate professor and Professor. Secretary Technical Education after considering, and examining all the aspects finalized the Final Seniority List vide letter dated 9/12/2021.
10. As on date there are no notified recruitment Rules in CCA adding to the agony / woes of applicant as otherwise she could have become a regularly appointed Principal long time back and what has happened would have never happened. As regards the process of Recruitment Rules, the applicant seeks to submit as under:
a. All Technical Institutions in Chandigarh are governed by AICTE regulations issued since 1987 from time to time and duly adopted by Chandigarh Administration for Conditions of Service, Faculty recruitment, pay scales and other aspects. 12 b. The last notified Recruitment Rules were made in 1991 and the last regular recruitment through UPSC was conducted in 2002 as posts in the college are to be filled by Direct Recruitment.
The applicant is reproducing the relevant extract of the prevalent Recruitment Rules 1991 of CCA for the post of Principal as under:-
"Essential Qualification:-
A-i) P.hD. in Architecture from a recognized University or equivalent.
ii) 6 years experience in teaching/research out of which 5 years should be at the level of Professor. OR Bi) Master Degree in Architecture from recognized University or equivalent
ii) 8 years experience in teaching/Industry/Research out of which 5 years should be at the level of Professor.
OR C-i) Ist class Bachelor's degree in Architecture from a recognized University or equivalent.
ii) 10 years experience in teaching/research/industry out of which 5 years should be at the level of Professor Classification of Post General Central Service, Group-A Gazetted.
Method of Recruitment By Direct Recruitment In case of Recruitment by promotion/deputation/transfer grades from which promotion/deputation/transfer to be met. Not applicable."
11. Now suddenly vide punitive order dated 19.07.2022, the charge of the post of Principal CCA has been taken away from the applicant undoubtedly on the basis of above false and frivolous complaints filed by vested interest or 13 manoeuvred by them, without holding any enquiry into the same by associating the applicant and only internal enquiry seems to have been undertaken at the back of applicant. Action was required to be taken against employees making repeated complaints on same subjects in complete violation of channel of correspondence as prescribed by DoPT OM dated 06.06.2013. The incumbent who has been given the charge i.e. private respondent namely Sh. Kapil Setia, Chief Architect U.T. Chandigarh allegedly on interim basis is an outsider to the cadre of applicant, not qualified to hold the post of Principal being a Graduate and by no means in the line of hierarchy under any rule or instructions. The private respondent is a Graduate, is working in the Pay scale of Rs 37400-67000 with a Grade pay of Rs 10,000/- and works as a Technical Advisor to Administrator, U.T, Chandigarh on Architecture and Planning issues pertaining to the Master Plan of the city and framing policies for the same.
12. Ground reality is that under Rules of any College of Architecture or Draft Rules of CCA PhD qualification is a must apart from other requirements, no other senior person is serving in College of architecture as Professor to claim the aforesaid post, the action amounts to reviewing 14 the earlier orders vide which the charge of post of Principal CCA was given to applicant and her sudden removal after 5 years in the manner it has been done is punitive, more so applicant is left with 12 years of service as on date and she just cannot move on by ignoring her unceremonious exit from the office of Principal CCA. The applicant being senior most eligible faculty Member and duly qualified has a right to hold the post of Principal over and above any other person specially of other department while immediately taking steps to fill the post on regular basis by finalizing the recruitment rules in a time bound manner. The order is cleverly worded as in last more than three decades senior most faculty has been holding the charge and things are not finalized to fill all posts including of Principal on regular basis and as such in wildest imagination also the giving of post to an outsider cannot be for a short term and in any case no junior person can bypass the applicant as per her seniority, qualification and experience in the College to claim the post of Principal. Hence the action of respondents is illegal, arbitrary, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence the present Original Application.
15
13. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed written statement dated 27.07.2022 stating therein that the applicant has not disclosed the true and correct facts in as much as the Chandigarh Administration had only assigned the additional charge for the post of Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh to the petitioner in addition to own duties w.e.f. 21.09.2017 (Annexure A-8). The nature of additional charge itself suggest that the same can be assigned by the Chandigarh Administration to any other person and applicant has no vested and legal right to continue on the additional charge. The Chandigarh Administration is well within its administrative rights to assign the administrative charge to any other person and applicant cannot impugn the same merely on the ground that the additional charge has been given to some other person by competent authority. The claim raised by the applicant to continue to work as Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh till the regular appointment is made subject to allegedly good work and conduct of the applicant, as also being the senior most professor possessing P.hD qualification is not legally sustainable. In fact to the contrary due to the act and conduct of the applicant, the entire teaching and working 16 atmosphere of the college was jeopardized, vitiated and compromised. Further, the work and conduct of the applicant is not satisfactory as numerous complaints have been received against her from the higher-level offices i.e. PMO and Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. Besides these complaints several other complaints have also been received from the other faculty members of the college regarding wrong upgradation of the applicant as Professor and serious matters of gross mismanagement and violation of norms of regulations of Council of Architecture. In order to ascertain the matter, an inquiry has been marked to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 22.07.2022.
14. The respondents have submitted that as per service jurisprudence during the pendency of an inquiry/investigation the delinquent official should normally be ordered to be suspended so that the relevant witnesses or persons connected to the case cannot be pressurized or influenced until the departmental inquiry is concluded. Therefore, it was also in the interest of a fair and impartial inquiry that the additional charge of Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture be withdrawn; however, she has not been put under suspension yet. It has been submitted that 17 the additional charge of the post of Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture assigned to her vide orders dated 21.09.2017 and as per settled law additional charge cannot be claimed as a matter of right as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma & Ors. 1993 AIR 2273, State Of Assam and Anr. vs. Ajit Kumar Sharma & Ors. AIR 1965 SCC 1996. It has further been submitted that respondent No.3 has rightly been assigned the impugned temporary charge as per rules and regulations. The respondents have submitted that in view of the decision dated 08.11.2019 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.364 of 2005 decided on 08.11.2019, respondent No.2 is in process of drafting the Recruitment Rules governing the Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh in pursuance to notification dated 11.08.2020 issued by Council of Architecture (Statutory Authority constituted under the Architecture Act, 1972). Until the recruitment Rules are finalized and notified, the appointment to the post of Principal would be governed by the aforesaid notification dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure R-2). The respondents have submitted that on the day of issuance of notice and grant of interim stay by this Tribunal in favour of 18 the applicant i.e. 22.07.2022, the Advisor to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh vide orders of even date has nominated the Secretary, Department of Home, U.T. Chandigarh as the Inquiry Officer to go into the various acts of omissions and commissions allegedly done by the present applicant and to submit report to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh within one month. Therefore, while staying the operation of the impugned order, the aforesaid order could not be brought to the notice of this Tribunal. Further, as per notification dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure R-2), it is not necessary to hold a Ph.D degree or to have teaching experience to one's credit hence respondent No.3 has rightly been given additional charge of Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh since he possesses B. Arch Degree and has more than 20 years of professional experience and further also possesses rich experience in administration at a responsible position and thus fulfils all the requirements of notification dated 11.08.2020.
15. Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated 10.04.2023 stating therein that the handing over of charge to the Respondent No.3 is, to make an urgent interim arrangement and the final decision in respect of it is kept 19 pending, due to interim order passed by this Tribunal. It is submitted that COA is the body responsible for regulating the education and practice of architect profession and Chandigarh College of Architecture is governed by the norms of Council of Architecture. The Council of Architecture vide letter dated July 5, 2022 addressed to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh had expressed its serious concerns with regard to working in Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh and has observed serious violations of certain norms, regulations and rules by deliberately by-passing COA (MSAER 2020). Council of Architecture in the letter had advised to rectify the deficiencies immediately to avoid any adverse action from Council's end. Therefore, in order to avoid any adverse action by Council of Architecture, the additional charge of Principal was withdrawn from the applicant Mrs. Sangeeta Bagga Mehta keeping in view of grave concern shown by CoA vide letter dated 05.07.2022 and an urgent interim arrangement was made by giving the charge of the post of Principal, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh to Respondent No.3 Shri Setia vide Order dated 19.07.2022 so as to facilitate proper coordination between Council of Architecture and College, and the teaching and 20 non-teaching staff with the Principal. It has further been submitted that the applicant was given an additional charge of the post of Principal CCA by an Order dated 21.09.2017 and she has completed more than five years tenure on the post. It was neither a promotion nor an enhancement in the scale of pay. On the contrary, it was made very clear that she shall not be entitled to extra remuneration. By subsequent Order dated 19.07.2022, the additional charge was withdrawn just to avoid the adverse action from the regulatory body the CoA on the basis of serious concerns raised COA. It is neither reversion nor reduction in pay scale. The Order is for administrative reasons. The applicant continues to work on her substantive post of Professor (CAS).
16. The applicant has filed rejoinder dated 16.03.2023 to written statement filed by respondent No.4 and also written submissions on 10.04.2024. The work and conduct of the applicant has been Outstanding till the time the orders for removal were issued and she had nothing adverse against her. But immediately after the issuance of the punitive order, the material was created to justify it. The complaints, internal enquiries and decisions based on them at back of applicant were foundation of passing of 21 order holding applicant guilty while accepting fabricated, malicious allegations without any application of mind or logic. Giving the interim charge of post of Principal CCA to a Graduate outsider is illogical, arbitrary, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and principle of rationality embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicant in this entire exercise was a victim from three standpoints, firstly as the victim of a punitive and stigmatic order which not only brought her dishonor and disgrace by being ousted from office of Principal despite having brought laurels and highest level of recognition to college making it to be acknowledged amongst the premier institutes of Architectural education across the nation; secondly a victim of the false complaints which the government used to entertain despite being in grave violation of channel of correspondence with immunity to complainants. Finally applicant feel victimised as despite having requisite qualification and experience, she was deprived of participation in regular process for appointment as Principal in absence of notified RR's.
17. We have perused submissions and also written statement dated 12.04.2024 filed by the respondents as also facts on record and case law relied upon. We have also perused 22 detailed submissions of the applicant filed on 10.04.2024.
18. We find that the applicant was appointed as Lecturer at Chandigarh College of Architecture on 27.12.1999. Thereafter, she was promoted on various dates and finally promoted as Professor in the Pay scale of Rs.27400-67000 with AFP of Rs.10,000/- as per the recommendations of the screening committee under AICTE Regulations 2010 w.e.f. 22.04.2014. Subsequent to her appointment as professor complaints against applicant were sent which were examined by three member higher power committee. The committee vide its report dated 23.07.2017, addressed to MHA, found no merit in the allegations. Consequently, vide order dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure A-7) Secretary, Technical Education recommended to MHA filing of the complaints. AICTE clarification dated 16.02.2017 also clarified that the experience of professor upgraded through CAS and those directly recruited shall be same for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Principal. Being the senior most faculty in Chandigarh College of Architecture (CCA) vide order dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure A-8), the applicant was given additional charge of Principal. From facts on record, it appears that regular attempts were made to file complaints against the applicant and her reply 23 sought on various occasions. However, the complaints were found to be without substance as detailed in the facts on record. Then vide order dated 19.07.2022, the charge of post of Principal was taken away from the applicant and given to Sh. Kapil Setia, Chief Architect, U.T. Chandigarh, private respondent No.3 on interim basis. At this stage, the applicant approached Tribunal and vide a detailed order dated 22.07.2022, this Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 09.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) and consequently Mr. Setia did not take over charge. This order is operating till date.
19. We have perused the written statement of respondents No.1 and 3. We find Sh. Setia, respondent No.3, is an outsider to the cadre of the applicant, not being in the teaching line and so has no teaching experience. In the circumstances how is he expected to head college of Architecture is also confusing to say the least.
20. We find the applicant has vast teaching experience in Architecture with Masters' and Ph.D. degree and has also received many awards. The so called apparently motivated complaints have also been found after enquiry to be without any substance. In the circumstances, there being no regular recruitment to the post of Principal, sudden 24 withdrawal of charge from applicant and assigning it to a person who has no teaching but administrative experience and is less qualified does not appear logical.
21. Respondent No.4 has filed short reply submitting that as per rules of the respondent University, officiating charge of post of Principal is to be assigned to the Senior-most approved teacher of the College in the event of vacancy arising on retirement, resignation, leave etc. of Principal as per norms approved by the Senate vide Paragraph XII of its meeting held on 20.03.1999, on recommendation of the syndicate meeting dated 17.03.1999.
22. The respondents have stated that in view of the Supreme Court decision in CWP No.364/2005 decided on 08.11.2019, respondent No.2 processed the draft rules governing the college of Architecture. These rules are in pursuance to notification dated 11.08.2020 issued by Council of Architecture, Chandigarh being statutory authority constituted under the Architecture Act, 1972. Unless recruitment rules are finalized and notified the appointment to the post of Principal shall be governed by aforesaid notification dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure R-2). The said Gazette notification dated 11.08.2020 in Appendix B at Part C states Minimum Qualifications, Pay, Experience 25 and Structure of Core Faculty in Degree Level, Architecture Institutions as follows (Page 285):-
"Bachelor's Degree in Architecture or equivalent to B. Arch and Master's Degree in Architecture or in allied subjects of Architecture with minimum 60 per cent. marks at either level, and Seventeen years' experience in teaching/research/ professional work out of which a full- time teaching experience of minimum eight years Or Twenty years of professional experience.
Desirable: Ph.D. in Architecture. Experience in Administration at a responsible position."
From the above, it is apparent that PhD. Degree in Architecture is desirable though not essential but minimum 8 years teaching experience is necessary. The applicant possesses Ph.D degree while other contenders do not have this degree so in terms of eligibility, we find that, in comparison, the applicant is much more eligible than the others. Applicant has requisite teaching experience unlike respondent No.3 and as per respondent No.4 officiating charge must be given to senior most approved teacher of the College.
23. We are of the view that the interim order was passed by the Tribunal based on appreciation of facts including that repeated complaints against applicant by same group of persons were found to be without any merit by high power Committee. The fact is that two main complainants J.P. 26 Singh and Sohan Lal Saharan have disciplinary actions pending against them. There is no dispute that she has higher qualifications and her work is appreciated at various forums. The complaints by 6th and 10th Semester students dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure RA-1) appear an afterthought as they are subsequent to her transfer orders. The complaints in letter dated 05.07.2022 are generic in nature.
24. It's a fact that Respondent No.3 does not have teaching experience as also no P.hD. degree. The claim of respondents that this urgent interim arrangement by giving charge of post to respondent No.3 in the light of COA letter dated 05.07.2021 to facilitate proper coordination between CAO and College and teaching and non-teaching staff is not very logical as someone not in teaching line will find it difficult to deal with issues relating to running a College. We have also seen COA letter dated 05.07.2021 which has been ascribed as basis of appointment of respondent No.3. The said letter from Council of Architecture to Secretary Chandigarh Administration mentioned that the Supreme Court in Appeal No.364 of 2003 has refused to stay operation of Bombay High Court order dated 08.09.2004 and vide judgment dated 08.11.2019 declared that 27 architecture education is to be regulated as per Architecture Act, 1992 and regulations therein and AICTE rules are not applicable for architecture education. We have also perused Annexure RA 3 by which Sh. Nitin Kumar Yadav, IAS Secretary, Department of Home, UT Chandigarh was appointed as inquiry officer to fix responsibility in any manner with respect the matters pertaining to the department of higher education and technical education, UT Chandigarh. The terms of reference of this letter make it very apparent that the issue raised therein are in relation to action to be taken by administration and cannot be attributed solely to the applicant. In the said letter also reference has also been made to long overdue pendency in framing of recruitment rules for teaching faculty in CCA which is not the responsibility of applicant. We find that the Chandigarh Administration has adopted COA Regulation 2020 dated 11.08.2020 for implementation w.e.f. 01.11.2020. However, the same have been notified with concurrence of finance department, Chandigarh only on 07.03.2002 and have been adopted from 02.05.2023 as seen in Endrst. No.P-16665-1H(16)-2023/6099 dated 02.05.2023. So RRs are still pending not yet finalized despite COA notification.
28
25. We find that the respondents have not initiated any process to fill up post of Principal on regular basis since 1996 and now RRs have to be framed as per COA notification and not AICTE in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court order. Having considered in detail the statements of the applicant as well as respondents, we find that this unsavoury situation has arisen primarily because recruitment rules for the post of Principal have yet not been finalized despite notification dated 11.08.2020 by the Council of Architecture which has been adopted by Administration vide notification dated 02.05.2023, after lapse of considerable time. It is because of lack of clarity and transparency that there is prolonged litigation on the issue.
26. In the circumstances discussed above, we direct the UT Administration to finalize and notify the recruitment rules. and complete the process for recruitment and appointment of regular Principal as per RRs. In the meantime, till regular appointment is made, present arrangement shall continue. The applicant shall continue to hold additional charge subject to work and conduct of the applicant, being the senior most professor with PhD, till regular arrangement is made. We find no reason to interfere in the present arrangement and Annexure A-1 is hereby 29 quashed. The OA is partly allowed. All the pending MA(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No order to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /kr/