Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rupali Saini vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar on 15 February, 2017
WP-2359-2017
(DR. RUPALI SAINI Vs DR. HARI SINGH GOUR UNIVERSITY, SAGAR)
15-02-2017
Shri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Sobha Menon, learned senior counsel with Ms. Ruchika
Singh, learned counsel for the Caveator.
Heard on the question admission.
Except the respondent No.1/caveator, issue notice to the
remaining respondents on payment of process fee within seven days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Also heard on the question of interim relief.
The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the order dated 8-9/7/2014 (Annexure P-15), which is an order of termination of the services of the petitioners and the resolution dated 25.8.2015 (Annexure P-24) passed in the minutes of the Executive Council of the respondent-University, whereby the petitioners' and other Assistant Professors' cases have been considered and they are found ineligible for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this Court in respect of other similarly situated employees have already passed an interim order in WP No.1683/2017 and WP No.1665/2017. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is a second round of litigation and earlier when petitioner-Dr. Kavita Rohit had approached this Court against the discontinuation of her service, this Court in WP No.10661/2014 (s) vide order dated 1.8.2014 has directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation taking all the objections before the Executive Council through the Registrar of the University within one week and the Executive Council was to take a decision on the same within a period of six weeks by recording reasons for the same and examine all the issues raised by the petitioners individually without being influenced by the fact of pendency of the CBI investigation and also that the decision of the Executive Council be communicated to the petitioners.
It is also submitted that the report of five members committee has not been supplied to the petitioners and now the University has also affirmed the report of five member committee vide resolution (Annexure P-24) and thus it is submitted that there is breach of order passed by this Court in WP No.10661/2014 (s), hence it is a fit case in which interim protection may be granted.
On the other hand, Smt.Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel for the Caveator has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It is submitted by learned senior counselthat the petitioners are not qualified to claim the post of Assistant Professor and the Ph.D. Degree obtained by them is not from the recognized University. Learned senior counsel has also invited attention of this Court to the public notice of the University Grants Commission (UGC), submitted acrossed the Board, to submit that the UGC clarified that those persons are not entitled to get exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for appointment as Lecturer/ Assistant Professor whose Ph.D. Degree has not been awarded in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standars and Procedure for awarding Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009. In support of her contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Sussela & others Vs. University Grants Commission & others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 129 to submit that the right to be considered for appointment is not vested, and the right to be considered for appointment is always subject to eligibility conditions prescribed from time to time. She has also placed reliance on the order passed by Indore Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Deepali (Surana) Vs. Higher Education Department passed in WP No.2305/2016 decided on 28.4.2016, in which the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Sussela has also been considered and the petition was dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Caveator cannot be considered at this stage. The question before this Court is that whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief or not. As per the documents filed by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by this Court in WP No. 10661/2014 (s) has not been complied with in its letter & spirit. Not only that the impugned resolution was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners but also that the report of the five members committee was not provided to the them on the basis of which the impugned resolution (Annexure P-24) dated 25.8.2015 was passed, which was a part and parcel of the impugned resolution. The petitioners have also submitted additional documents including the minutes of the meeting and the order dated 13.2.2017, which has also been obtained by the petitioner subsequently. Hence, it appears that the order passed by this Court in WP No. 10661/2014 (s) has not been complied with properly, and the case appears to be arguable. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case in which interim protection may be granted to the petitioners.
Accordingly, it is directed that till next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned order dated 8-9.7.2014 (Annexure P-15) as well as resolution dated 25.8.2015 (Annexure P-24) shall remained stayed, and till next date of hearing the respondents are restrained from discontinuing the services of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is granted two weeks' time to file its return.
List the case along with WP No.1665/2017 and WP No.1683/2017.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Ansari