Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. R.K. Pandey vs Rani Durgawati Vishwavidhalaya ... on 1 September, 2015
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV, J.
Writ Petition No.19388/2013
Dr.R.K.Pandey
Versus
Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.S.Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Tabrez Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(01.09.2015) Notification dated 24.10.2013 cancelling notification Number Sabha/2013/1505 dated 8.04.2013 which led to the constitution of Computer Science Board of studies and constitution of Ad-Hoc Committee under the Chairmanship of Head of Department (Mathematics) is being assailed vide this petition.
2. Section 28 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam 1973') provides that there shall be a Board of studies for every SUBJECT or GROUP OF SUBJECTS as may be prescribed by the statutes. Sub- section (2) of Section 28 makes it imperative that each Board shall 2 consist of - (i) Professors of University Teaching Departments and Schools of Studies in subjects for which the Board is constituted; (ii) Two Heads of College Departments in Colleges teaching the said subject up to the post-graduate level to be nominated by the Kulpati by rotation according to seniority; (iii) One Reader from the University Teaching Department Schools of Studies teaching the said subjects to the nominated by the Kulpati by rotatioin according to seniority; (iv) two Heads of Colleges Departments in college teaching the said subjects up to the degree level to be nominated by the Kulpati by rotation according to seniority; (v) not more than two teachers in the aid subjects to be nominated by the Kulpati; (vi) one student to be appointed by the Kulpati possessing the qualifications laid down in the Statutes; (vii) two members to be co-opted by the Board, one of whom shall be an expert from outside the University, and shall be from a recognised research institute, if any, in the subject or group of subjects for which the Board is constituted. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 28 provides that term of Board will be three years.
3. That respondent-University in purported exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Adhiniyam has framed Statute 10 wherein under the faculty of Mathematical Science group of subjects namely (1) Mathematics (ii) Computer Science (iii) System Analysis & Statistics has been provided. 3
4. Case of the petitioner is that in an emergent meeting of Executive Council of University was convened on 06.01.1993, decision was taken that, from academic session 1993-94 a new department i.e. University Institute of Computer Science & its Application (for short 'UICSA') will be constituted with two educational programme viz. (I) M.Sc. in Computer Science and (ii) Master of Computer Application.
5. That the petitioner was appointed as Director of UICSA vide order dated 19.10.2012 and by order dated 08.04.2013 the Board of studies for Computer Science was constituted with the petitioner as its Chairman. It is urged that though catagorized as subject under faculty of Mathematical Science, the UICSA acquired an autonomous status distinct from Department of Mathematics.
6. It is urged that because of the autonomous status, for the first time the Board of studies for Computer Science was constituted in consonance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Adhiniyam by order dated 8.4.2013. It is contended that the Board of studies comprised of members as is required under sub-section (2) of Section 28 of the Adhiniyam. However later, vide impugned notification dated 24.10.2013, the Board of studies of Computer Science was abolished and an Ad Hoc Board was constituted under Chairmanship of Head of the Department of Mathematics with Director UICSA as its member.
4
7. It is this decision which the petitioner is aggrieved of and calls in question on the ground that an independent autonomous department having been carved out for the studies of Computer Science and being recognized as an independent entity within the department of Mathematicsal Science it was erroneous on the part of respondent-University to have constituted an Ad Hoc Board of studies for Computer Science under the Chairmanship of Head of the Department of Mathematics. It is contended that under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam Professor of the subject of the faculty for which the Board of studies is constituted is to be appointed as Chairman and not professor of any other subject. It is on this count the petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 24.10.2013.
8. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed the Return and Additional Return.
9. In a Return filed on 16.05.2014 it is stated that against notification dated 08.04.2013 Professors of Mathematics and Computer Science Department made a representation opposing the constitution of the Board of studies. The matter whereafter was forwarded to Academic Council on 17.05.2013 which in turn entrusted the same to five members Committee. The Committee submitted its report on 17.06.2013 in the following terms :
**fo"k;&dEI;wVj lkbal v/;;u e.My ds xBu ds laca/k esaA fo0fo0 vkns'k Øekad@lHkk@2013@1788 fnukad 27-5-13 5 mijksDr lanHkZ esa xf.kr lfefr dh fefVax fnukad 17-6-13 dks 1-00 cts lEiUu gq;hA lfefr izdj.k ij fopkj dj ,oa izLrqr nLrkostksa dk v/;;u djus ds mijkar loZlEefr ls fuEukuqlkj viuh vuq'kalk izLrqr djrh gSA 1- xf.kr foHkkx ds vkpk;ksZa }kjk mBkbZ x;h vkifRr;ksa ds lanHkZ esa lHkk foHkkx }kjk mYyf[kr Vhi [¼P-1½ fnukad 25-4- 2013] ds fcUnq Øekad 1&5 rd dh tkudkjh mfpr izrhr gksrh gSA 2- pwafd xf.kr foHkkx M.Sc.(Computer Science) ,oa M.Phil (Computer Science) dk ikB~;Øe lapkfyr djrk vk jgk jgk gSA rFkk fo0fo0 iwoZ ls gh dEI;wVj lkbal ds v/;;u e.My esa xf.kr foHkkx ds f'k{kdksa dks ukekafdr djrk jgk gS] vr% Computer Science ds orZeku esa xf.kr v/;;u e.My [Øekad lHkk@2013@1505 fnukad 8- -2013] tks fd fo0fo0 vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj ek0 dqyifrth }kjk fd;k x;k gSA ;fn ekU; gks rks xf.kr foHkkx ds f'f{kdksa dks v/;;u e.My dk lnL; ukekafdr fd;k tk ldrk gSA**
10. It is contended that acting upon the recommendation by the Committee, Vice Chancellor vide impugned order cancelled the order dated 08.04.2013 and constituted a fresh Ad-Hoc Committee, which as stated is in consonance with Section 28 of Adhiniyam, 1973.
11. That by Additional Return filed on 07.01.2015 some more facts are added to justify the action. It is stated that since 1993 M.Sc. (Computer Science) and Master of Computer Application (MCA) courses were operated by the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. The Computer Science was separated from the Mathematics with AICTE's intervention in 2006. Since then, it is urged, the Computer Science is granted separate premises for operation. When called upon to clarify as to what do the University 6 mean by saying that a separate premises is allotted to the Computer Science, it is fairly contended that the Computer Science is treated as separate department with its own Head. It is however contended that since the department of Computer Science is not properly managed resulting in depleting strength of students a decision has been taken to merge the service of the petitioner with the Department of Mathematics & Computer Science. Minutes of meeting dated 13.04.2008 and order dated 15.04.2008 are brought on record. It is reflected from the resolution dated 13/14.03.2008 that taking into consideration the representation received from the students and the irregularities in the UICSA, a decision was taken to merge the department with Department of Mathematics with one Head of Department. The resolution is in the following terms :
**6- foHkkx ,oa Nk=ksa dh leL;kvksa ds lek/kku gsrq ppkZ mijkar fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd UICSA ftl izdkj iwoZ esa xf.kr foHkkx ds lkFk lapkfyr Fkk ,oa nksuksa ds i`Fkd&i`Fkd foHkkxk/;{k u gksdj ,d gh foHkkxk/;{k Fks mlh izdkj iqu% UICSA dks xf.kr foHkkx ds lkFk feyk;k tkos ,oa ,d gh foHkkxk/;{k j[ks tkus dh laLrqfr dh xbZA**
12. This resolution culminated into an order passed on 15.04.2008. Pertinently, this decision lasted only for over a year when vide decision dated 26.06.2009 it was resolved to separate UICSA from the Department of Mathematics. The decision is brought on record as Annexure RJ/1 and is in the following terms : 7
**jkuh nqxkZorh fo'ofo|ky;] tcyiqj Øekad@LFkk@2009@693 tcyiqj] fnukad 22@07@09 vkns'k fo'ofo|ky; dk;Zifj"kn dh cSBd fnukad 26-06-2009 esa in Øekad 5 esa fy, x, fu.kZ; ds ifjikyu esa xf.kr foHkkx ls UICSA ¼,e-lh-,- foHkkx½ dks i`Fkd fd;k tkrk gS] rFkk MkW0 vkj- ds- ik.Ms;] izokpd] dEI;wVj lkbal dks ,e-lh-,- foHkkx esa funsZ'kd dh fu;ekuqlkj p;u vkSj fu;qfDr@izfrfu;qfDr gksus rd ds fy, ek= izHkkjh cuk;k tkrk gSA vkns'kkuqlkj izHkkjh dqylfpo jkuh nqxkZorh fo'ofo|ky tcyiqj**
13. No decision is commended at by the respondent-University contrary to the decision dated 26.06.2009 of separating the UICSA from the Department of Mathematics.
14. Thus Statute No.10, Computer Science though has been grouped under the faculty of Mathematical Science, the facts, however, remain that the same is acknowledged as separate Department different than the Department of Mathematics, which is also one of the Department under faculty of Mathematical Science which being the genus, the department of Mathematics, Computer Science and system Science and Statistics are its species having independent identity as Mathematical Science having its own Head and the faculty, which is not shown to be interchangeable. This harmony is also reflected from other faculties such as faculty of Arts, Social Science, Science, Life Science, Engineering, Ayurveda, Medicine, having different subjects with respective department.8
15. Thus, when Section 28 of Adhiniyam, 1973 requires that there shall be a Board of studies for every subject and the Computer Science being acknowledged as a different subject than Mathematics, it cannot be given a step motherly treatment by keeping it under Board of studies meant for Mathematics or by a Board of studies headed by Head of Department Mathematics.
16. The impugned order dated 24.10.2013 when adjudged on the anvil of above analysis cannot be upheld, therefore, quashed with a direction to the respondents to either revive the order dated 08.04.2013 or pass a fresh order constituting separate Board of studies for Computer Science in consonance with Section 28 of Adhiniyam, 1973 within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order.
17. Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand