D K SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner Dr.D.K.Sharma has been teaching in the Department of Chemistry in the Ramjas College, Delhi since 16.10.1973. The petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2005. He applied for re-employment under Ordinance 12 of the Revised Executive Council Guidelines. The respondent No.2, namely Ramjas College forwarded the petitioner's application for re-employment vide letter dated 27.5.2005 along with the relevant record. The respondent No.1, namely University of Delhi vide a letter dated 24.6.2005 rejected the request for re-employment. The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to grant approval for re-employment of the petitioner. The main ground on which the writ petitioner relies is that the respondent No.1 granted re-employment to one Mr.D.K.Sethi, Reader in Economics, who retired on 30.11.2003 and to Dr.R.N.Gandhi, who retired on 1.3.2004 and that the petitioner is similarly situated and even has better experience of administrative job, having worked as Vice-Principal at certain point of time and is, therefore, also entitled to the same benefit, as has been given to Dr.Gandhi and Mr.Sethi. the writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 saying that the re-employment can be granted to any distinguished teacher only subject to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor of the University that it is not the vested right of any college teacher to be re-employed and that the respondent No.1 has considered the application for re-employment in the light of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 13.10.2003. The procedure adopted for considering an application for re- employment of the teacher has been described. It is stated that an application for re-employment is considered by the Advisory Committee consisting of the Pro Vice-Chancellor, Director (South Campus), Dean of Colleges and Subject Expert, which considers the application along with specific recommendations of the Governing Body of the College, bio-data, teaching experience, academic experience, research publications, research work, involvement in extra- curricular activities and physical fitness. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee is then placed before the Vice-Chancellor for approval. It is stated by the respondent No.1 that after following the due process and procedure laid down and also keeping in mind the orders of the Supreme Court dated 13.10.2003 and the provisions of the concerned ordinances and resolutions of the Executive Council, the Vice Chancellor has taken the decision not to grant re-employment to the petitioner. It is further submitted that reference to the case of Dr.R.N.Gandhi and Dr.D.K.Sethi has no relevance to the facts of the case.

(2.) The petitioner's challenge is based on the ground that the order of rejection dated 24.6.2005 is devoid of any reason, that the action is arbitrary inasmuch as case of the petitioner was better than that of R.N.Gandhi and Dr.D.K.Sethi that the petitioner has been conferred the honour by the College in appreciation of his meritorious service and that the petitioner has legitimate expectation of being re-employed and denying such legitimate expectation could not be done without good reasons.

(3.) Before coming to examine the pleas raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to mention some judicial orders of this Court and the Supreme Court relating to the issue of re-employment of college teachers. In the CWP No.1382/03 (T.P.S.Chawla Vs. University of Delhi), which is still pending in this Court, an order was passed on 12.5.2003, restraining the University from re-employing any reacher after the age of superannuation. This order was subsequently modified on 26.5.2003. The order dated 26.5.2003 reads as under:-