NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY Vs. PROFESSOR MANMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is an off -shoot of dispute raised in WA. No. 23 of 2012, which has been filed by NEHU and Ors. on the ground that learned Single Judge has decided the matter in wrong premises inasmuch as it has been held that the appointment of Dr. D. Bhattacharjee (respondent No. 6), was not made in accordance with provisions of Statute No. 7 of NEHU Statute.

(2.) NECESSARY facts giving rise to filing of this writ appeal are that in terms of resolution No. EC: 83:94:5:01 of Executive Council of NEHU, the following Centres were established in the University, namely, (i) Centre for Adult and Continuing Education, (ii) Centre for Rural Development, (iii) Centre for Cultural and Literary Studies, (iv) Centre for Creative Arts, (v) Centre for Science Education, (vi) Centre for Eco -Development, (vii) Centre for Applied Statistics and (viii) Centre for Distance Education, which are equivalent to Department of Studies within meaning of Section 2(g) of North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973. According to Respondent No. 1, only one faculty position of Professor/Reader for NEHU was sanctioned in 6th Plan.

(3.) UNIVERSITY authorities vide Notification dated 4 -9 -1998 notified a regulation under Ordinance OA -3 and OA -11 of NEHU Ordinances whereby existing Centres became units within new Centres. It was also notified that Centre for Science Education, Centre for Adult and Continuing Education and Centre for Distance Education would form Centre for Supportive Learning Systems (CSLS). Consequently, respondent No. 3 herein was appointed as Unit -in -Charge for the Unit of Science Education vide the notification dated 3 -11 -2001 issued by Deputy Registrar, Establishment, NEHU. Terming the action of respondent authorities in making existing Centres as Units within new Centres upon reduction in status of Centre for Science Education as illegal, respondent No. 1 filed W.P. (C) No. 183 (SH) of 2004 for appropriate relief. According to records respondent authorities having subsequently realized that their exercise was not in order, issued a notification dated 14 -10 -2004 abolishing all newly created Units with immediate effect. Thus Centre for Science Education came to be revived i.e. by restoring its status. This notification was followed by a consequential notification dated 8 -11 -2004 terminating the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Unit -in -Charge of Unit for Science Education. However, university authorities issued another notification dated 8 -11 -2004 appointing respondent No. 3 as Head of Centre of Science Education. Appointment of respondent No. 3 was questioned by respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 157 (SH) of 2005 during the pendency of earlier Writ Petition No. 183 (SH) of 2004, mainly on the ground that only one post of Professor/Reader was sanctioned under 6th Plan against which post he was appointed as Professor and further that respondent No. 3 belongs to Mathematics Department and not to Centre for Science Education. According to respondent No. 1, Statute 7 of North Eastern Hill University Statutes ("the Statutes" for short) clearly lays down that Head of any Department of University is to be appointed from amongst Professors of said Department, and in case where there is only one Professor, either the Professor or Reader can be appointed as Head of Department, but nowhere in Act or Statutes or Ordinances is it mentioned that a person from another Department can be appointed as Head of Department. A contention was also raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 that once status quo ante has been restored following the abolition of Units so created, the status and position of respondent No. 1 as Head of revived Centre for Science Education should be restored. Besides when respondent No. 3 did not belong to Centre for Science Education, his appointment as Head of this Centre was illegal, and thus it was liable to be quashed. It is also a submission of respondent No. 1 that as he is the sole appointee in Centre for Science Education, none but he is entitled to be appointed as Head of Centre and that in view of his long and continuous service, he has a legitimate right to be restored to position of Head of Centre, and appointment of respondent No. 3 to post in question by ignoring his case was, therefore, illegal and is liable to be quashed to make way for his re -appointment.