SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY Vs. HARIKRISHNA CHANDULAL TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a Professor (respondent No.1 herein), who is appointed on the post of the Head of the Department of the petitioner-University, is entitled to continue even after the tenure of such appointment is over, is the question which is required to be considered in this Special Civil Application.

(2.) In the petitioner-University, there is a post of "Head of University Department" and such Head of the Department can be appointed by the Syndicate from amongst a person, who is a Professor, or failing him, a Reader, in any of the subjects comprised in the Department. Chapter XII of the Statutes deals with the Heads of University Departments. The relevant provisions are Sections 112A to 112D and the same are reproduced as under :-

(3.) The other grievance was including ex cadre employee for the purpose of selection as Head of the Department on the ground that in view of the Supreme Court judgment, as referred above, this ex cadre employee could not have been clubbed together for the purpose of consideration for appointment on the post of Head of the Department unless there is a proper amendment in the Act. According to the respondent, instead of amending the statute, the Syndicate passed a Resolution, whereby Clause 26 was inserted in Ordinance 95-A, whereby the Professors under Merit Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme and directly recruited Professors came to be placed in equal footing so far as the seniority is concerned. The said Notification is also placed on record in the Compilation as Annexure `G'. The present respondent, therefore, approached the Tribunal on the aforesaid grounds, viz., that the Syndicate has no right to prescribe rotation procedure and also to prescribe tenure for appointment to the post of Head of the Department as well as considering the ex cadre employees as Professors under the Merit Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme after clubbing them with the directly recruited professors considering them equal in the matter of seniority. The respondent No.1 had also prayed for interim relief to the effect that he should be allowed to be continued on the post of the Head of the Department, by restraining the University from removing the respondent No.1-original applicant as the Head of the Chemistry Department. The Tribunal had granted ad interim relief which was prayed for and, thereafter, after hearing both the sides, allowed the aforesaid Application No.9 of 2001. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in the earlier proceedings of this very applicant, the Tribunal had decided the point about the inclusion of ex cadre Professors in the matter of fixing seniority along with directly recruited persons. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that by passing Resolution, it was not open for the Syndicate to disobey the earlier directions given by the Tribunal as well as the Syndicate could not have acted contrary to the Supreme Court judgment unless the statute was properly amended. The Tribunal also further came to the conclusion that it was not open for the Syndicate to prescribe any rotation procedure and the Syndicate could not have prescribed any tenure so far as the appointment to the post of Head of the Department is concerned. The Tribunal, ultimately, allowed the said application, with certain observations in the order and having been aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the University has preferred this Special Civil Application, challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal.