Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr.Niranjan Narayan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 7 March, 2018
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7416 / 2017
Dr. Niranjan Narayan Singh S/o Shri Arjun Singh, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Khod House, 4- B, Shivaji Nagar Udaipur, District
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat Jaipur.
2. University Grants Commission (UGC) Through the Secretary,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
3. Bhupal Nobles University Udaipur Through Its Registrar.
4. The Chairperson, Bhupal Nobles University, Udaipur.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur.
For Applicant :
Mr. Sandeep Shah.
Dr. Nikhil Dungawat.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 07/03/2018 This writ petition is directed against the notice / advertisement dated 8.6.2017 (Annex.4) inviting applications for the post of Registrar and the decision dated 7.6.2017 (Annex.5), whereby, the charge of the post of Registrar has been assured to be assumed by the Chairperson of the Society. Further relief has been sought that the petitioner be allowed to discharge his duties on the post of Registrar.
It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner is having qualification of M.A. Archeology, Ph.D. and LL.B. and is having experience of 15 years on the administrative side. The respondent -
(2 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] University was established under the Bhupal Nobles' University, Udaipur Act, 2015 ('the Act'); as per power conferred under Section 18(1) of the Act by order dated 24.4.2016, the Chairperson appointed the petitioner as Registrar in the pay-scale indicated therein, the petitioner assumed the charge on 30.5.2016. By Resolution No.2, the Board of Management of the University confirmed the appointment of the petitioner as Registrar.
It is then claimed that the petitioner was surprised to read a notice published in the newspaper dated 8.6.2017, whereby, the applications were invited for the post of Registrar indicating that the candidates were required to fulfill the University Grants Commission Norms ('UGC norms') and can apply on or before 15.6.2017 and that shortlisted candidates would be interviewed on 22.6.2017. It is claimed that as there was only one post of Registrar, which was already occupied by the petitioner, the publication of advertisement in the newspaper under the heading 'vacancy' was not justified. It is also claimed that the petitioner fulfills the requisite qualification as per the UGC norms and Statutes of the University. It is also averred in the petition that on 7.6.2017, the Chairperson issued an assurance that he would assume the charge on the post of Registrar by 22.6.2017.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 27.4.2016, the petitioner was appointed in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the Act, which appointment was confirmed by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 30.5.2016. With reference to the provisions of the Act, submissions were made that under Section 18, the Registrar is required to be appointed by the Chairperson in such manner as may prescribed by the Statutes and presently no Statutes are in existence. Even under the Act, (3 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] the Statutes under Section 29 can provide for manner, terms and conditions for appointment of Registrar.
As per the provision, the Statutes are to be made by the Board of Management, submitted to the State Government for approval, which approval is still pending. Under Section 38 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the University is required to follow the Rules, Regulations & norms etc. of the regulating bodies and the regulating bodies have been defined under Section 2(r), which includes UGC, AICTE etc. and the State Government.
It is submitted that the respondents have raised a ruse of complying with the requirements of UGC norms, which have no application, which is apparent from Annex.3 dated 31.12.2008, which provides that the same was meant for fully funded universities and deemed to be universities. Without prejudice, it was submitted that the petitioner fulfills the requirements even as per the said scheme dated 31.12.2008 requiring the master's degree with at least 55% marks and 15 years' administrative experience.
It was also submitted that the present writ petition was filed on 20.6.2017 and on 24.7.2017, notices were ordered to be issued and it was directed that status quo as it existed on that date, shall be maintained regarding appointment to the post of Registrar, Bhupal Nobles' University, which interim order was modified on 14.12.2017 in the nature that instead of maintaining status quo, the respondents were restrained from further proceeding with selections pursuant to the advertisement dated 8.6.2017 and it was made clear that the University would be free to pass appropriate orders.
Whereafter, pending proceedings, order dated 19.1.2018 (Annex.A/1) filed alongwith the second stay application was passed by (4 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] the respondents, inter alia, indicating termination of his services w.e.f. 19.1.2018.
It was emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was regularly appointed on the post of Registrar under Section 18 of the Act and as there was no vacancy on the post of Registrar, the respondents were not justified in issuing the advertisement.
Further submissions were made that the petitioner is qualified even if, the UGC norms have any application and that the action of the respondents in passing order dated 18.1.2018 putting to an end the services of the petitioner, clearly reflects that the vacancy was advertised by the respondents without there being any vacancy. The termination of the petitioner's services is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the petition deserves acceptance and action of the respondents in advertising the vacancy and putting an end to petitioner's services, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - University vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that under the provisions of Section 2(u) of the Act, the Sponsoring Body of the University is the Vidya Pracharini Sabha, Udaipur, a society registered under the provisions of the relevant Act. It was submitted that in the resolution dated 30.5.2016, relied on by the petitioner, vide Resolution No.7, a Committee was constituted for preparing the Statutes and Ordinances of the University for onward transmission to the State Government, Board of Statutes and Academic Council of the University were constituted and a resolution was passed to constitute a Committee to frame policy for (5 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] recruitment of faculty, non-teaching staff and officers for the administrative office of the University as per 'UGC norms'.
Though, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 27.4.2016 by the Chairperson vide Annex.2, vide resolution of the Sponsoring Body dated 9.3.2017, the work of Registrar was entrusted to one Sh. Mohabbat Singh Rupakheri and with the appointment of said Mr. Rupakheri, the appointment of the petitioner made on 27.4.2015, came to an end. Whereafter, again on 12.5.2017 in continuation of order dated 27.4.2016, the petitioner was reappointed as Registrar 'till further orders'. It is submitted that from the order dated 12.5.2017 reappointing the petitioner, it is apparent that the appointment of the petitioner was, by its very nature determinable, as the same was made till further orders only. It was then submitted that a communication dated 30.5.2017 was received from the State Government, inter alia, indicating that the work of providing common Statutes for private Universities was in last phase and till such time the same are prepared, the University should function in accordance with the provisions of the UGC Regulations Act, 2003 and Regulations relating to appointments and, therefore, steps were taken to recruit the Registrar as per the UGC regulations as indicated in Annex.A/3 by publishing advertisement dated 8.6.2017.
It is claimed that on 19.6.2017, the petitioner went on leave and on 23.6.2017 informed on telephone that he would not join and, therefore, on 24.6.2017 charge of the post of Registrar was handed over to one Prof. Raghuveer Singh. It was submitted that as per the UGC norms (Annex.R-3/2) besides a master's degree with at least 55% marks, 15 years of administrative experience is necessary, which the petitioner lacks and as such, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not qualified and the University was bound to appoint a qualified person (6 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] as Registrar, the process has been initiated. It was reiterated that as the appointment of the petitioner was by its very nature determinable, there was no requirement to afford any opportunity of hearing and as the steps have been taken to fulfill the statutory requirements, the petitioner cannot raise any dispute and in case, he has any grievance in this regard, he has to proceed in accordance with law and cannot forestall an appointment on the post of Registrar. It was submitted that pursuant to the advertisement, 40 applications were received from which, 13 have been shortlisted and on account of interim order granted by this Court, further process is held up. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the writ petition was filed on 20.6.2017 and, therefore, there was no question of petitioner telling the respondents that he would not be joining and averments made in this regard are baseless. Further submissions were made that the stipulation of the State Government dated 30.5.2017 (Annex.R-3/3) pertains to the future appointments and nowhere, it was required that the appointments already made be disturbed and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.
During the course of submissions, as the petitioner had only brought the order dated 19.1.2018 on record by way of second stay application, when the counsel was asked to take steps for questioning the validity of the order appropriately, submissions were made that in view of limited and identical nature of submissions qua the order dated 19.1.2018 as well, the validity of the same may be examined at this stage only and as such final arguments on the entire matter including order dated 19.1.2018 were heard.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for (7 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] the parties and have perused the material available on record including documents produced by applicant - Dr. Nagendra Singh Solanki, who filed application for impleadment as party respondent.
A bare indication of sequence of events, as noticed hereinbefore, indicates that by order dated 27.4.2016, the Chairperson of the University appointed the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Act, which appointment was confirmed by the Board of Management on 30.5.2016. Whereafter, it appears that in the meeting of Sponsoring Body i.e. Vidya Pracharini Sabha, Udaipur dated 9.3.2017 (Annex.R- 3/4), the work of the Registrar was directed to be performed by Sh. Mohabbat Singh Rupakheri by way of interim / alternative arrangement and after a lapse of two months, the petitioner was reappointed as Registrar in continuation of the office order dated 27.4.2016 'till further orders'. The order dated 12.5.2017 reads as under:-
"Order In continuation of this office order No.BNU/2016-17/02 dated 27.4.2016 of Chairperson, Bhupal Nobles' University is pleased to reappoint Dr. Niranjan Narayan Singh S/o Sh. Arjun Singh Rathore as a Registrar of the Bhupal Nobles' University, Udaipur for till further order with effect from the date he assumes the charge of the office of the Registrar. All terms and conditions of this appointment shall remain the same as specified in his above earlier order.
(Gunwant Singh Jhala) CHAIRPERSON"
There is no denial to the events indicated hereinbefore and as such, apparently w.e.f. 12.5.2017, the petitioner was working as Registrar on being reappointed till further orders. The very fact that the order of reappointment was made till further orders necessarily means that the same was only an interim arrangement and was liable to be revoked at any point of time. There cannot be any denial of the fact that (8 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] the University has to be run / operated in orderly manner as per the requirements of the Statues and/or the norms laid down by the regulating bodies like UGC etc. As the Statues proposed by the University were pending with the State Government, by direction dated 30.5.2017, the Joint Secretary, Higher Education, gave the following direction to the University:-
"egksn;] mi;qZDr lanfHkZr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd futh fo'ofo|ky;ksa ds fy, dkWeu LVsV~;wV~l dk izk:Ik rS;kj dj izLrqr djus gsrq dqylfpo] jktLFkku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj ds la;kstu esa ,d mi lfefr dk xBu fd;k gqvk gSA ftldk dk;Z vafre pj.k esa gSA vr% dkWeu LVsV~;Vw ~l dk izk:Ik rS;kj gksus ,oa mls vafre :Ik fn;k tkdj ykxw djus rd Hkwiky ukscYl fo'ofo|ky;] mn;iqj vf/kfu;e] 2015 ds izko/kkuksa] ;wthlh jsX;wys'kUl] 2003 o fu;qfDr;ksa ls lacaf/kr ;wthlh jsX;wys'kUl ds izko/kkuksa rFkk fofu;ked fudk;ksa ds ekun.Mksa ,oa izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lEikfnr djkosaA Hkonh;] ¼MkW UkkFkw yky lqeu½ Lak;qDr lfpo] mPpf'k{kk"
A perusal of the above direction required the University to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, UGC Regulations, 2003 and provisions of UGC Regulation relating to appointments etc. The plea raised by the petitioner that the said direction dated 30.5.2017, pertained to future recruitments / appointments and not in relation to the existing appointments cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, as the status of petitioner as Registrar, which remained in hiatus from 9.3.2017 to 12.5.2017 and the reappointment was also made till further orders, the University was bound to comply with the requirements of UGC norms for the post as important as that of Registrar of the University and ensure that the incumbent complied with the eligibility requirements of the UGC Regulations.
(9 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] The UGC Regulations produced as Annex.R-3/2 besides requiring a master's degree with at least 55% marks, require the following experience relevant to the present case:-
"(iii) 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post."
The case of the petitioner is that he fulfills the requirement of experience as well i.e. 15 years of administrative experience of which, 8 years was as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post, the Sponsoring Body has issued the experience certificate dated 10.5.2017 of the petitioner, which has been filed as Annex.1 with the rejoinder and reads as under:-
Ø-la- dk;Zdky@le; in
fo-iz-lHkk dh dk;Zdkfj.kh esa lnL;
1- fnuakd 12-02-1999 ls 03-03-2008 rd vksYM ckW;t izfrfuf/kA
esa lnL; jgrs gq, izcU/k lfefr Hkwiky
2- dk;Zdkfj.kh dh dk;kZof/k o"kZ 2002&08
uksckYl laLFkku ds lnL; jgsA
esa lnL; jgrs gq, fof/k milfefr
3- dk;Zdkfj.kh dh dk;kZof/k o"kZ 2005&08
fo|k izpkfj.kh lHkk ds v/;{k jgsA
esa lnL; jgrs gq, laLFkku dh p;u
4- dk;Zdkfj.kh dh dk;kZof/k o"kZ 2005&2011
lfefr ds lnL; jgsA
5- fnukad 03-03-2008 ls 28-02-2011 rd la;qDr ea=h fo|k izpkfj.kh lHkk
6- fnukad 28-02-2011 ls 22-02-2017 rd miea=h ,oa izcU/k funs'kd
The claim made that as the petitioner was holding the position of Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Sponsoring Body, the said experience was required to be counted towards administrative experience and as Deputy Registrar / equivalent post cannot be accepted as claimed by the petitioner. The requirement of UGC norms have to be read in the context and the requirement of experience on equivalent post has to be read ejusdem generis in the context of experience as Deputy Registrar and as such the claim made by the (10 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] petitioner regarding his having requisite experience for holding the post of Registrar cannot be accepted.
In view of the above state of affairs, the action of the respondents in initiating the process for recruiting regular Registrar, fulfilling the UGC norms cannot be faulted and further the claim made by the petitioner regarding his fulfilling the requirement of UGC norms also apparently based on his claimed experience, cannot be accepted.
However, it appears that the events after the publication of the advertisement on 8.6.2017 have not been very pleasant and/or as desired i.e. in an orderly manner and it appears that the petitioner and the respondents were playing hide and seek and were trying to indulge in one-upmanship. The objection of the petitioner regarding advertisement of the vacancy and passing of the Resolution dated 7.6.2017, wherein, the Chairperson appears to have assured that if the selection to the post of Registrar not made till 22.6.2017, he would take over the position as Registrar himself points out towards the same.
The petitioner was on leave on on 19.6.2017, which is apparent from the fact that the writ petition was presented before the Court on 20.6.2017. As to what transpired, whereafter, though is not apparent, as a date regarding replacement of petitioner w.e.f. 22.6.2017 was assured vide Annex.5, it appears that on the said position of Registrar, by office order dated 24.6.2017 (Annex.R-3/7), Prof. Raghuveer Singh was entrusted additionally the charge of Registrar till duly selected candidate was appointed and he joined the duty.
Whereafter, this Court by its order dated 24.7.2017, ordered for maintaining the status quo regarding appointment to the post of Registrar, which order continued till the same was modified by order dated 14.12.2017, whereby, instead of maintaining status quo, it was (11 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] directed that the respondent shall not proceed further with the selections and it was also clarified that the University would be free to pass appropriate orders, the University has come up with the order dated 19.1.2018 terminating the services of the petitioner indicating the fact of petitioner not fulfilling the requisite qualification as per the UGC norms.
The above sequence of events reflects that the respondents with the appointment of a regular Registrar having requisite qualification as per the UGC norms intended to replace the services of the petitioner, however, on account of the present proceedings and the interim order granted therein and before the interim order was granted, the position of Registrar was entrusted to one Prof. Raghuveer Singh as an adhoc arrangement and once the interim order was modified, the respondents have passed the order.
So far as the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the stand of the University and the fact that it did not want to continue the petitioner as Registrar, was already apparent on account of the response filed by the University and the reason as disclosed in the order dated 19.1.2018 regarding the ineligibility of the petitioner was also disclosed and/or was on record and as such the submissions made regarding violation of principles of natural justice by itself cannot be accepted. Further, as the reappointment of the petitioner vide order dated 27.04.2016 was till further orders only, the same could be put to an end at any time and as such the order passed for the reasons indicated therein regarding eligibility, as discussed above, cannot be faulted.
However, it is apparent that the respondents have treated the petitioner in service at least till the order dated 19.1.2018 and, (12 of 12) [CW-7416/2017] therefore, for whatever benefits the petitioner would be entitled on account of his service with the respondent - University till 19.1.2018 are concerned, he would be entitled thereto. For any other claim, which the petitioner may have against the respondents, he is free to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.
Insofar as, the present writ petition is concerned, the action of the respondents in initiating process for appointment of Registrar fulfilling the eligibility in accordance with UGC norms and the fact that the petitioner doesn't fulfill the eligibility conditions stands concluded and the order dated 19.1.2018 except leaving it open for the petitioner to seek relief regarding compensation etc., does not require any interference by this Court.
In view of the above discussion, except for the observations made hereinbefore, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. Sumit/-