PUSHPENDRA SINGH Vs. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second round of litigation for petitioner. In the first round, respondents were directed to convene a Board of Meeting, which held on 17th July, 2015, to consider giving personal hearing to the affected faculty. As per impugned order of 29th February, 2016 (Annexure P-2), petitioner was also given personal hearing regarding equivalence of his qualification way back in the year 2012, when petitioner was selected as Associate Professor in pursuance of Advertisement/Recruitment Notice of 3rd December, 2011 (Annexure P-3). The essential experience as per the aforesaid Advertisement/Recruitment Notice (Annexure P-3) for being selected as Associate Professor was as under: -

(2.) Since petitioner possessed the aforesaid requisite relevant experience, therefore, he was selected as Associate Professor and had joined in July, 2012 and continued in the said position till 31st March, 2016. A Show-Cause Notice of 29th May, 2015 (Annexure P-1) was issued to petitioner disclosing that he did not possess the mandatory experience for the post of Associate Professor (Mechanical) at the time of his selection. Petitioner had submitted his reply to it and thereafter, vide impugned order (Annexure P-2), petitioner's appointment as Associate Professor has been declared as void ab initio.

(3.) The challenge to impugned order by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that petitioner had six years' experience as Assistant Professor and so, he was qualified to be appointed as Associate Professor. Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner's counsel to Notification of 22nd January, 2010 issued by All India Council for Technical Education to point out that Lecturers already in service in Pre-Revised Scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 were re-designated as Associate Professor with Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 6,000/-. So, it is submitted that impugned order deserves to be set aside and petitioner ought to be put back as Associate Professor. Reliance is placed by petitioner's counsel upon Supreme Court's decisions in Prakash Chand Meena and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2015 8 SCC 484and Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, 2010 8 SCC 372 to submit that once petitioner's appointment as Assistant Professor has been duly approved by respondents' Board of Management, then, after more than three years, petitioner's appointment cannot be declared to be void ab initio as the Rules or the Norms post Advertisement, cannot be applied now to declare petitioner ineligible.