Allahabad High Court
Shailesh Kumar Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 July, 2010
Author: Sunil Ambwani
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
1
Court No. 29
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 38538 OF 2007
Shailesh Kumar Chaurasia vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.
Heard Shri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Verma appears for the University.
The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 31132/2007 in which without calling for a counter affidavit, the Court passed the following orders:-
"We have heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 and Shri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3.
In our opinion this petition can be disposed of without calling for counter affidavit.
Under the quality improvement programme for the session 2007-2008 the petitioner who is a lecturer in the department of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Engineering and Technology, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly had applied for admission in M.Tech course in IIT, Roorkee, Uttaranchal. The petitioner has been admitted in M. Tech course and he has to report at the Institute on 25.7.2007 forenoon and the classes would commence from 30.7.2007. He applied for permission and permission has been granted by the Vice Chancellor of the University as he has written approved on the letter of the petitioner at page 19, annexure-II to the writ petition. It appears that Registrar of the University is not giving relieving order to the petitioner.
This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Registrar of the University to issue relieving order to the petitioner by 18.7.2007. In case the relevant order is not given by the Registrar of the University to the petitioner it shall be open to the petitioner to move an application in this petition. Once relieving order is given by the Registrar to the petitioner he can easily join the M. Tech course in IIT, Roorkee on 25.7.2007 for which the leave etc. shall be sanctioned by the Registrar of the University within the aforesaid period.
A certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today.
Dt. 13.7.2007 Sd/- V.M. Sahai
Sd/-Bharati Sapru, J"
2
A counter affidavit was thereafter filed by the Registrar of the University stating that the petitioner was informed that after giving no objection certificate by the Registrar, a report was submitted by the Dean, I.E.T. to the Vice Chancellor that due to shortage of teachers, it is not possible for the teachers to be relieved for M. Tech. and Ph. D course under the Q.I.P. Programme of the University Grants Commission.
The detailed report dated 3.7.2007 was accepted by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 4.7.2007. The Executive Council accepted the note by a reasoned order. It was found that as against 120 teachers, including 14 Professors, 33 Readers and 73 Lecturers, at that time only 85 teachers were working, in which 39 teachers were on regular pay scale, and 46 are on guest faculty. The guest faculty teachers were in the ratio 1:17, whereas the 39 regular teachers, were in the proportion is 1:37. The Executive Council found from the substance of the report of the Dean, I.E.T., that the continuance of the guest faculty is subject to the approval of the AICTE and is valid upto 2007 and in the circumstances in case the regular teachers are sent on QIP programme the College will lose recognition from the AICTE and will also suffer loss to Rs. 2.40 lacs per year for salary of 12 teachers to be relieved on full pay per teacher and that the ratio of teachers students will be reduced from the standard of 1:15 to 1:53. The Executive Council decided not to relieve any teacher in QIP programme.
The Registrar has stated in para 26 of the affidavit that the petitioner had met him several times and he was informed with the resolution of the Executive Council dated 4.7.2007, and that he cannot be relieved.
It is alleged that the petitioner has concealed these facts and 3 on the basis of the no objection certificate issued by the Registrar of the University on 10.10.2006, he appeared in the interviews and impressed upon the Court to issue orders to be relieved on the ground that some clerk of the University is not allowing the relieving orders to be given.
It is submitted that the report was submitted by the Dean on 3.7.2007.; the resolution was passed by the Executive Council on 4.7.2007 and that the affidavit in the writ petition was sworn on 10.10.2007. The Court passed orders on 13.7.2007, disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the Registrar to issue relieving order by 18.7.2007.
The petitioner has not challenged the report of the Dean, I.E.T. and the resolution of the Executive Council. In the circumstances, even if under the QIP programme the petitioner, is deemed to be on deputation, the petitioner cannot be allowed the benefit of full salary and allowances during the period he had completed the M. Tech course in IIT Roorkee and for which he was registered on 25.7.2007.
We agree with the learned counsel for the University that the petitioner did not place on record full facts before obtaining the order from the Court to be relieved for joining in M. Tech course under the QIP programme.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Dt. 07.7.2010 RKP/