(1.) Heard Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhang Dobhal, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
(2.) The petitioner, currently employed with the respondent-University, was appointed as an Associate Professor by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The minimum years of experience remained to be promoted, to the post of Associate Professor, is eight years teaching experience. The petitioner claims to have nearly 13 years experience in teaching. Based on a complaint made by an individual, against whom the petitioner had earlier made a complaint, the respondent-University appears to have constituted a Committee which, after enquiry from the other University had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was short of minimum required teaching experience of eight years. The said enquiry report appears to have been placed before the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 12.01.2019; and the Executive Council appears to have resolved to accept the enquiry report, to call upon the petitioner to show cause thereagainst, and for the Vice Chancellor to give a personnel hearing, and if he considered necessary to put up the matter to the Executive Council.
(3.) Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the Executive Council had already pre-judged the issue; the very fact that they had accepted the enquiry report would show that they had already made up their mind; no useful purpose would be served in the petitioner submitting a reply thereto; the disciplinary action, sought to be taken against the petitioner required a charge-sheet to be issued, an enquiry to be conducted wherein evidence is adduced on behalf of the University, and the sentence is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, besides adducing evidence in his defence; the Executive Council which is required to take a decision, has erred in calling upon the petitioner to appear for oral hearing before the Vice Chancellor; an oral hearing should be given by the authority which would imposes the punishment, and not by the another; and, in any event since a duly constituted Selection Committee has found the petitioner eligible for appointment, the Executive Council cannot sit in judgment over the decision of such a Selection Committee.