Allahabad High Court
Dr Dipanwita Singha Roy vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 18 February, 2025
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Judgment Reserved on 13.12.2024
Judgement Delivered on 18.02.2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025 : AHC : 21621
Court No. - 07
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4884 of 2024
Petitioner :- Dr Dipanwita Singha Roy
Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava,A.S.G.I.,Amit Sinha,Anant Kumar Tiwari,Hem Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/Union of India, Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5, Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.
3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alias with the following prayer:-
"(i) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to produce the recommendations of the selection committee which met on 04.01.2024 for promotion as Professor (Academic Level - 14), in the Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Art, Banaras Hindu University and to quash the same.
(ii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature restraining the respondent from undertaking any proceedings in pursuance to the recommendations of the selection committee which met on 04.01.2024 for promotion as Professor (Academic Level-14), Department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Art, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.
(iii) a writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondent to reconvene a meeting of selection committee for consideration of the petitioner for promotion as Professor (Academic Level-14) after including therein the external expert in the subject/field of Kathak Dance within a period to be specified by this Hon'ble Court."
5. Facts as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor (Kathak) at Punjabi University, Patiala vide order dated 27.02.2009. Though in paragraph-4 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor but in the letter of appointment translated copy of which is appended at page-32 of the paper book, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in the department of Dance.
6. An advertisement was issued by the Banaras Hindu University by Rolling Advertisement no. 07/2014-15 for recruitment on the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in the year 2015. The petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement and was duly selected and issued a letter of appointment by the University vide letter dated 03.10.2015 by which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Associate Professor in the department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. The services of the petitioner was confirmed by the University vide letter dated 22.02.2017.
7. The petitioner also work as Head of Department of Dance for the period of 3 years on rotational basis vide order dated 23.11.2019 and thereafter she again started functioning as Associate Professor in the department in question. The petitioner is working as Associate Professor in Academic Level - 13A. Promotion of the petitioner is permissible as Professor (Academic Level - 14) in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities & Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards of Higher Education) Regulations 2013.
8. A notification dated 01.09.2023 was issued by the Deputy Registrar of the University inviting applications on or before 30.09.2023 for consideration of promotion under career advancement scheme to different academic levels including promotion to the post of Professor (Academic Level - 14). The petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid notification well within time on the prescribed proforma. After requisite processing, the petitioner was required to appear before the selection committee on 04.01.2024. The petitioner duly appeared before the selection committee on the said date. It is stated in paragraph-17 of the writ petition that recommendations of the selection committee has yet not been opened and are pending consideration. It is further stated in the writ petition that in normal course, recommendations of selection committee are required to be considered in meeting of the Executive Council and thereafter it is implemented.
9. It is argued that there does not exist any duly constituted Executive Council in Banaras Hindu University for the past 2 years. On such account it is the Vice Chancellor who had passed order on recommendations of the selection committee at his level alone without any consideration by the Executive Council. It is further stated that with regard to the recommendations of selection committee which met on 04.01.2024 no order has been passed as yet even by the Vice Chancellor at his level.
10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the constitution of the selection committee which did not include experts for Kathak subject for which the petitioner applied. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 01.03.2024 before the Vice Chancellor of the University. It is stated in paragraph-22 of the writ petition that till date no action whatsoever has been taken on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation.
11. For promotion as Professor (Academic Level - 14) in the Department of Dance there are 2 applicants namely the petitioner and one Dr. Vidhi Nagar/ Respondent No.6, the present Head of the Department of Dance.
12. The Respondent No. 6 was appointed as Lecturer in Dance (Kathak) vide appointment order dated 02.11.2006 pursuant to the advertisement no. 2/2005-06. Subsequently the Respondent No.6 was appointed as Associate Professor vide order dated 30.09.2015. It is further stated in the writ petition that petitioner as also Respondent No. 6 both are discharging duties in the discipline of Kathak Dance. The qualifications and experience of the petitioner as also Respondent No. 6 is in the speciality of Kathak Dance. Neither the petitioner nor the Respondent No. 6 had any academic qualification nor experience in Bharat Natyam. Respondent No. 6 being a Head of the Department was herself instrumental in forwarding the names of the External Expert who ultimately participated as member of the selection committee on 04.01.2024. Since the Respondent No. 6 herself was an applicant she did not participate as a member of the selection committee.
13. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the communication dated 03.07.2023 issued by the Joint Registrar - (Recruitment & Assessment Cell) Addressed to all Heads of the Departments calling for list of External Subject Experts not below the rank of Professor for participation as members of selection committee.
14. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication of the Joint Registrar of the University, the Respondent No. 6 being Head of the Department of Dance forwarded the list of External Subject Experts who ultimately participated as members of the selection committee which met on 04.01.2024.
15. It is argued that entire proceedings of the selection committee which met on 04.01.2024 is vitiated on account of unwarranted interference at the level of the Respondent No. 6.
16. It is further argued that External Experts who participated in the proceedings do not pertain to the subject under consideration for which the petitioner and Respondent No. 6 were candidates for consideration of promotion as Professor (Academic Level - 14).
17. In paragraph-32 of the writ petition the name of the external experts is mentioned which reads as follows:-
"(i) Dr. Arati Shetty, Principal, Amrita Vidyalayam, Mangalore.
(ii) Dr. Uma Rele, Principal, Nalanda Nritya Maha Vidyalaya, Mumbai.
(iii) Kamalini Asthana, a Kathak Exponent."
18. It is argued that neither the aforesaid three persons were qualified nor eligible for participating as Expert for consideration for promotion as Professor in the discipline of Kathak Dance. It is further stated in paragraph nos. 34 & 36 of the writ petition that none of the Experts are exponent of Kathak Dance and does not have any academic qualification, teaching experience or expertise in Kathak Dance. On the basis of the aforesaid it is argued that entire constitution of the Selection Committee stood vitiated on account of the participation of the aforesaid 3 persons as external experts in proceedings of the Selection Committee which met on 04.01.2024.
19. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Statute 27 of the First Statute of Banaras Hindu University which reads as follows:-
"27 - Selection Committee:
(1)(a) There shall be Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Executive Council for appointment to the posts of Professors, Readers, Lecturers, Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Librarian and such other posts as are declared teaching posts by the Academic Council.
(b) Every Selection Committee shall consists of Vice Chancellor who shall be the Chairman thereof and a person nominated by the Visitor, and in addition the Selection Committee for making recommendations for appointment to a post specified in column (1) of the Table below shall have as its members the persons specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table:
Professor (1) The Dean of the Faculty concerned, provided he is a Professor, except in cases where they are applicants or when the post held by them is being filled up.
(2) The Head of the Deptt.
Concerned, provided he is a Professor, except in cases where they are applicants or when the post held by them is being filled up.
(3) Not less than three persons not being in the service of the Executive Council who have special knowledge of the subject with which the person to be appointed will be concerned, to be nominated by the Executive Council.
Reader/Lecturer and Teaching post (1)The Dean of the Faculty concerned;
(2) The Head of the Department concerned.
(3) Not less than two persons not being in the service of the University or members of the Executive Council who have special knowledge of the subject with which the person to be appointed will be concerned, to be nominated by the Executive Council.
Registrar/Controller of Examination Three Members of the Executive Council nominated by it.
Librarian Not less than three persons not being in the service of the University or members of the Executive Council who have special knowledge of the subject of Library Science to be nominated by the Executive Council.
Professors, Readers and Lecturers and other teaching post in the Institute of Technology, Institute of Medical Sciences and the Institute of Agricultural Sciences.
The Director of the concerned Institute will also be a member of the Selection Committee constituted as above for the respective post.
Professor, Readers and Lecturers and other teaching post Mahila Mahavidyalaya.
Principal, Mahila Mahavidyalaya, will also be a member of the Selection Committee, constituted in as above for the post of Mahila Mahavidyalaya.
Professor, Readers and Lecturers in the Centre of Advanced study/Departments, selected for Special Assistance Programme/Schools.
Programme Coordinator of the concerned Departments (CAS/SAP and Schools) will also be a member of the Selection Committee.
(c) Provided that the meetings of the Selection Committee shall be fixed only after prior consultation with and subject to the convenience of the Visitor's nominee and the persons nominated by the Executive Council under Clause (b) above.
Provided further that the proceedings of the Selection Committee shall not be valid unless:
(i) Where the number of Visitor's nominee and the persons nominated by the Executive Council is four in all, atleast three of them attend the meeting; and
(ii) Where the number of Visitor's nominee and the persons nominated by the Executive Council is three in all, at least two of them attend the meeting.
(d) Notwithstanding the provision under Statute 27(1) (a) the Executive Council may constitute a Special Committee to suggest names of persons of high academic distinction eminence and professional attainments for filling in Special Chairs of Professors.
(2)The procedure to be followed by a Selection Committee in making recommendations shall be laid down in the Ordinances.
(3)If the Executive Council is unable to except any recommendation made by the Selection Committee, it shall record its reasons and submit the case to the Visitors for orders."
20. Based on the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate has raised three arguments:-
(1) There did not exist Executive Council in the University, the Vice-Chancellor has no authority to constitute a Selection Committee and nominate subject experts which can only be nominated by the Executive Council, as contemplated under Statute 27 of 1st Statute of the University. (2) The subject experts nominated by the Vice- Chancellor are not in the field of Kathak dance, whereas the post is in subject of Kathak dance in department of dance. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1990(4) SCC 510; Dr. Tiloki Nath Singh Vs. Dr. Bhagwan Din Misra and others.
(3) The respondent no. 6 himself is an application for selection of Professor Level-14 under Carrier Advancement Scheme. The respondent no. 6 working as Head of Department, has forwarded the name of external expert, who participated in the proceedings, thus, the selection proceedings are vitiated.
21. The learned counsel for the University has submitted that Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, categorically lays down and grants power to the Vice-Chancellor under section 7(c)(5). Section 7(c) (5) of the Act is as under:
"..If, in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, any emergency has arisen which requires immediate action to be taken, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action as he deems necessary and shall report the same for approval at the next meeting to the authority which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter:
Provided that, if the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor is not approved by the authority concerned, he may refer the matter to the Visitor, whose decision thereon shall be final: Provided further that, where any such action taken by the Vice-Chancellor affects any person in the service of the University, such person shall be entitled to prefer, within thirty days from the date on which he receives notice of such action, an appeal to the executive Council..."
22. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor is empowered in emergency, which requires immediate action to take such action as he deemed necessary and shall report the same for approval at the next meeting to the authority, which in ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter.
23. It is further stated that the Selection Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor, after receiving directions from the Ministry of Education, vide letter dated 6.1.2023.
24. The learned counsel for the University has relied upon a judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Monika Bansal Vs. Union of India & others (Writ-A No. 12176 of 2024) decided on 05.12.2024. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:
31. The second argument raised regarding competence of Vice Chancellor to constitute a Selection Committee, needs to be dealt in view of crisis which had precipitated in the University due to term of Executive Council having been come to an end and Visitor not appointing any nominee for its constitution. University authorities had requested the Ministry of Education to get the nominees appointed so that the Selection Committee is constituted but it remained unattended till the year 2023, when the Ministry of Education required Vice Chancellor to proceed under Section 7(c)(5). Moreover, the faculty members whose promotions were being delayed and had become eligible under the Scheme had approached this Court for implementation of the Scheme by the University authorities. Not only the writ Court but also the contempt Court had required the University authorities to proceed in the matter and accord due promotion to the eligible candidates under the DACPS.
32. In light of these compelling circumstances, petitioner's argument cannot be accepted and Selection Committee so constituted exercising power under Section 7(c)(5) by Vice Chancellor cannot be faulted.
25. Thus, so far as first argument of counsel for the petitioner that the constitution of Selection Committee was vitiated, as, the experts were not nominated by the Executive Council, has no substance.
26. So far as the second ground is concerned, the learned counsel for the University has submitted that the Banaras Hindu University is having department of dance and the petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor in department of Dance, Faculty of Performing Art, without any specifying in Kathak or Bhartnatyam dance. The learned counsel for the University has further submitted that syllabus for all courses, i.e., Bhartnatyam, Kathak or any other dance course is common for many papers. The syllabus is to be taught by the dance teacher irrespective of specialities.
27. The learned counsel for the University, in this regard has annexed annexure CA-6 which contains the course in Faculty of dance which clearly established that in most of the courses in bachelor of performing Art, various papers are common and there is no division of Bhartnatyam or Kathak.
28. The counsel has further drawn the attention of Court to the appointment of the petitioner as Associate Professor in pursuance of rolling advertisement No. 07 of 2014-15. The petitioner had participated in interview for the post of Associate Professor post-code 2730 in department of dance, Faculty of Performing Art. The advertisement which has been annexed as annexure-2 to the writ petition contains the post code. The post code 2730 is mentioned at page 37 and the said post is under the Faculty of Performing Art, the Associate Professor for dance and no specialization is mentioned under column specialization. The letter of appointment of the petitioner at page 52 also contains the Post Code 2730 and the letter of appointment also did not contain any specialization in Kathak or Bhartnatyam and she was also confirmed as Associate Professor in the University in department of dance Faculty of Performing Art, Banaras Hindu University.
29. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the University that as per Clause 6.4.8 of the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010, duly amended (4th Amendment Regulation 2016) provides that the Associate Professor completing 3 years of service in stage-4 and possessing a Ph.D degree in relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in next higher grade, subject to satisfying the required credit point as per API PBAS Mythology provided in table 1-3 of Appendix IV.
30. In view of the aforesaid provision, the learned counsel for the University has argued that since the appointment of the petitioner has been initially made as Associate Professor in department of dance therefore, on completion of 3 years of service in stage-4 and fulfilling all the eligible criteria mentioned in UGC Regulation, she was called for interview by the Selection Committee held on 4.1.2024 for promotion of post of Professor (stage-5) by upgrading her own post of Associate Professor in department of dance.
31. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Monika Bansal (supra) has also held that once there is no bifurcation in the department, the Selection Committee is not vitiated on the ground of having experts of special field and has held as under:
14. On the question of composition of Selection Committee, he submitted that Statute 27(1)(b) provides for the composition of Selection Committee, which was duly constituted by Vice Chancellor. It consisted of eminent personalities. He then contended that Statute 25A(2) provides for the Department of Dentistry which functions as a single department without further bifurcation, sub-division based on super specialities. There is only one department in the faculty which is known as Department of Dentistry. There is no separate Department of Periodontology under the faculty of dental sciences in the University. Petitioner herself was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Dentistry and not in the specialisation of Periodontology.
32. Based on the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the University has argued that the argument of the petitioner regarding external experts and specialization in Kathak or Bhartnatyam is wrong and misconceived.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Dr. Tiloki Nath Singh (supra). The said judgment is not applicable in present case,as the linguistic was a separate subject from literature.
34. The petitioner herself was appointed as Associate Professor in department of dance without any speciality in Kathak or Bhartnatyam. Thus, under Carrier Advancement Scheme, there was no requirement of external experts being expert of Kathak. Thus, the second submission of petitioner is also without substance.
35. For third ground, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings are vitiated as Dr. Nidhi Nagar, respondent no. 6 who herself was an applicant for promotion as Professor under Carrier Advancement Scheme was instrumental in preparation of list of external expert. It is further argued that it was incumbent upon Dr. Nidhi Nagar to have dis-appropriated herself from preparation of panel of experts. It is argued that the entire proceedings are vitiated on account of bias of Dr. Nidhi Nagar in her own favour.
36. Learned counsel for the respondent University has argued that on 3.7.2023, Annexure-17 at page 99 of the writ petition, the Joint Registrar (Recruitment & Assessment Cell) of Banaras Hindu University has issued letter to the Director of Institutes, Dean of Facilities, Head of Department and Coordinators of Schools/ Centres, requesting specialization-wise list of at least 20 external subject experts. The experts were to be not below the rank of Professor, from top 20 NIRF ranked institutions, Institutions of National/International reputation with complete contact details to be provided in the specified proforma. The letter was also circulated to the Head of the Department of Dance in the Faculty of Performing Arts and at that time, the respondent no. 6 was the Head of the Department.
37. In compliance of the aforesaid letter, a comprehensive list of experts was proposed by the Policy and Planning Committee (PPC) of the Department and was forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor through Head of Department. It is for the Vice-Chancellor to nominate 03 experts, following the procedure laid down in this regard. Thus, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent University that it is the Vice-Chancellor who selected 03 experts, who formed the Selection Committee for promotion of both, i.e., the petitioner and the respondent no. 6.
38. It is further argued that the Selection Committee consists of 01 expert from field of Kathak and Dr. Uma Rele and Dr. Aarti H. Shetty were from the field of Bhartnatyam. The Selection Committee was constituted by the Vice- Chancellor consisting of above 03 experts. It is further argued the Selection Committee was constituted Department of Dance which is composite department without any further sub-division. The petitioner was also appointed on the post of Associate Professor in the department of dance, without any reference to any specialization.
39. It is further argued that at the time of selection of the petitioner to the post of Associate Professor, Dr. Uma Rele, who had specialization in Bhartnatyam, was a part of the Selection Committee and the said Selection Committee has recommended the petitioner for the post of Associate Professor. Thus, the petitioner having being appointed by the similarly constituted Selection Committee in past, cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge another selection committee, especially when one of the experts under challenge was also an expert in the previous Selection Committee, in which the petitioner herself was selected. Thus, it is the Vice-Chancellor who has selected 03 external experts from the list of 20 external experts.. In this view of the matter, the list of experts forwarded by the respondent no. 6 did not vitiate the constitution of the Selection Committee.
40. The same arguments have been adopted by Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
41. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Selection Committee was validly constituted by the Vice-Chancellor in terms of section 7(c) (5) of the Act. The petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor (Dance) and not the Associate Professor in Kathak, thus, the constitution of Selection Committee is not vitiated only on the ground that external experts are not in the field of Kathak. The Vice-Chancellor himself has selected the external experts, out of the list provided to him. Thus, merely because the list of external experts was provided by the respondent no. 6, the constitution of the Selection Committee is not vitiated.
42. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
43. The interim order dated 29.03.2024, granted earlier, is also vacated.
Order date:- 18.02.2025.
swati/saqlain