R C SHARMA Vs. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th June, 2007 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (for short the University) and memo dated 21st July, 2007 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration-T) of the University communicating the order impugned to the petitioner by which the claim of petitioner for Chairmanship of Hindi Department of the University has been rejected by saying that the petitioner has now become senior to Prof. P. K. Saxena, the respondent No. 4 herein, and the cycle of rotation moves from upward to downward and not in zig-zag manner, therefore, he will get chance of Chairmanship as and when the cycle of rotation starts afresh. The seniority position of Professors in the department of Hindi is as follows; <FRM>JUDGEMENT_824_ADJ1_2010Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) Seniority wise, the Chairmanship should go to the petitioner immediately after the tenure of Prof. K.M. Misra ends, as his position stands in the second place. As per the eligibility criteria, the candidate should be a Professor. But it so happened that for the cadre post of Professor, the General Selection Committee was held on 10th May, 2003, in which both, the petitioner and the 3rd empanelled candidate as above, appeared and the petitioner was unsuccessful, therefore, the 3rd empanelled candidate was appointed on the post of Professor. In further selection for the post of Professor under Career Advancement Scheme, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Professor on 25th April, 2007 and was given all benefits with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 4th June, 2002, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the Chairmanship, being in the second place as above, but the 3rd empanelled candidate was given Chairmanship. However, by the passage of time, the Chairmanship of 3rd empanelled candidate has expired, therefore, the petitioner being 2nd empanelled candidate and having been superseded by the 3rd empanelled candidate as mentioned above, should have been given Chairmanship. In spite of that being so, the 4th empanelled candidate as above, has been given Chairmanship in the month of January, 2009, when the writ petition itself was pending. However, at an interim stage a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 17th December, 2008 had directed that meanwhile if any appointment to the post of Chairman is made, the same will be subject to decision of this case.

(3.) Under the order impugned, the stand of the University is that since the cycle of rotation cannot go in a zig-zag manner, therefore, when all the persons as aforesaid will complete their rotation, then only the chance of petitioner will come and not before that, whereas to that extent the stand of the petitioner is that only two years are left for the petitioner to retire from service, consequently, his chance will never come and as a result thereof he will be deprived of the Chairmanship for no fault on his part. The petitioner cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Kumar and others v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, to establish that if under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, administrative action is to be struck down as discriminative, proportionality applies and it is primary review. If it is held arbitrary, wednsebury applies and it is secondary review. This principle is now uniformly followed in all Courts more rigorously than the one based on classification. Arbitrary action by the administrator is described as one that is irrational and not based on sound reason. It is also described as one that is unreasonable and it can be struck down as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India.