Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra inasmuch as this Court has already considered the issue and has held the writ petition maintainable against the respondent College itself in the case of Sandeep Jain vs. State of M.P. & ors. (W.P. No.13260/2020). This Court held in para 37 as under:-

"Accordingly, it is held that since, the respondent no. 4 is governed by Statute 30 framed by the State Govt. under Section 38(1) read with Section 37 of Rajiv Gandhi Proudogiki Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1998, and the respondent no.4 is also getting grant-in-aid, as well as the service conditions of the teaching staff is regulated and safeguarded as per the provisions of College Code, thus, the respondent no.4 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction."

16. Since, the issue is already considered and decided by this Court, the preliminary objection raised by respondents is here rejected and the writ petition is held to be maintainable

17. On merits, it is not in dispute between the parties that the provisions of Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya (College Code Statute), 2007, commonly known as College Code, are applicable to the college. Regulation 20(1) of College Code provides as under:-

"20(1) No appointment to any teaching post in the college, including the post of the Principal but excluding part-time appointments, temporary appointments which are not to continue for more than six months and appointments to posts which are to be filled by promotion, shall be made except.

19. Keeping in view the provisions of Regulation 20 of College Code, if the nature of petitioner's initial appointment is examined, it is found to be purely temporary as he was appointed on 22.08.2006 for a period of 85 days and the same was made to continue till he was appointed as Lecturer in regular pay scale vide order, dated 22.09.2008, (Annexure P/3).

20. The petitioner claims to have been permanently appointed vide order, dated 22.09.2008. However, from document filed as Annexure P/3, it does not appear that the appointment of petitioner as Lecturer was made as per Regulation 20 of College Code by a properly constituted selection committee. Therefore, the petitioner would not acquire status of a regular teacher in the College. Similar, is the situation when the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in the year 2010. Again, this appointment was not shown to have been made after advertisement and by selection committee as per AICTE norms. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that he acquired status of a permanent teacher in the College is not acceptable inasmuch as his appointment either as Lecturer or Assistant Professor was not in consonance with Regulation 20 of College Code.

25. The learned senior counsel for petitioner next challenged the action of College on the ground that a teacher can be terminated only on the ground and with the approval of Executive Council, as enumerated in Regulation 33 of College Code. However, this objection is unacceptable inasmuch as the provisions of Regulation 33 would apply only to a teacher appointed as per Regulation 20 and would not apply to a temporary or part time teacher. This court has already held that the petitioner was not a teacher appointed as per Regulation 20 of College Code and, therefore, protection under Regulation 33 is not available to him.