KANAKSINH K. JHALA Vs. GUJARAT AYURVED UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this petition prays for the relief to declare the resolution dated 29.07.2012 of syndicate of respondent University (Annexure G) and the order of suspension of July 2002 as illegal.

(2.) IT appears that when the petition was entertained on 14.08.2002, the following order was passed : " 1. The petitioner is working as a Reader and Head of Department of Ras Shastra and Bhaishajya Kalpana with Shri Gulabkunverba Ayurved College, Jamnagar. He initially came to be appointed as a Lecturer in the year 1978 and came to be appointed as Reader in the year 1981. He has approached this Court against an order of suspension issued by the respondent on basis of a decision taken by the Syndicate in its meeting dated July, 29, 2002. The order came to be passed on July 30, 2002. 2. According to the petitioner, the order was not served on him till he approached this Court. However, what transpires is that the order was served by substituted service by pasting the same on the door front of his house.

(3.) THE main contentions raised before the Court by the petitioner are that the resolution and the order suffer from the defect of nonapplication of mind and malice. The action is mala fide and initiated with ulterior motive of depriving the petitioner of contesting ensuing Senate election. It is also contended that the petitioner's career is brilliant and blotless. Nothing is alleged to have been done by him after his entering the service. What is alleged to have been done was something which is done by the University while the petitioner was a student. All that can be alleged is that he had made an application for change in birth date which came to be accepted by the University, which could not have been legally acceded to by the University and the University could not have made the changes and, that too, has been done almost 29 years back in the year 1973. It is, therefore, contended that suspension is uncalled for, is without any basis and the resolution and order are, therefore, without application of mind. It is contended that the whole proceedings are initiated at the behest of a particular person, who is member of the Senate, who is member of the Syndicate, who is appointed as member of the Inquiry Committee and, therefore, the proceedings suffer from legal malice.