K N SRIVATSAVA DR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Dean of Physics in Respondent No.1-University.

(2.) The facts lie in a short compass: The Petitioner was appointed as Reader in Physics in May, 1978. He was promoted as Professor in January, 1986. There are seven Professors in the Department of Physics in Respondent No.1 University. The Petitioner is No.3 in order of seniority, after Sri G.S.Agarwal and Sri A.K.Bhatnagar. Mr.Srinivasan, Mr. Shenoy and Mr.Pathak are next to him.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that for appointment to the post of Dean, the seniority in the cadre of Professors in the respective disciplines is considered and appointments made by rotation on the basis of seniority. It is the established principle in the University from the beginning. There are no statutes prescribing the procedure, method and manner of appointment as Dean. This was also confirmed by the Vice-Chancellor in a Convocation address in 1989 for the benefit of teaching staff. Shri Agarwal was appointed as Dean for three years from November, 1977 to November, 1980. So also M.Bhatnagar the next professor who worked for three years from November, 1980 to November, 1983 and again was appointed for another term of three years upto November, 1986. When he went on leave in January, 1986 for about five months, the Petitioner being the immediate junior in the category of Professors was appointd as Dean for the leave period. It was the petitioner's trun for regular appointment after Sri Bhatnagar. But as he went to Canada as visiting Professor, his junior Mr.Srinivasan was appointed for three years from November, 1986 to November, 1989. After the tenure of Sri Srinivasan was over, the petitioner ought to have been appointed as Dean. But, this was not done; ignoring the seniority and rotation system, the Vice-Chancellor decided to appoint Mr.Shenoy for which the petitioner protested. Against that appointment the petitioner filed W.P.No. 16635 of 1989. Though the Writ Petition was admittted, no suspension orders were passed by the Court as the incumbent had already took charge of the post. In November, 1992 the tenure of Prof .Shenoy was to expire, but before that he resigned in June, 1992. Again this time the petitioner apprehended that his junior was likely to be appointed to the post. At this point of time, the present Writ Petition was filed. When, Prof. Pathak was appointed as Dean, he was impleaded as Respondent No.2 by orders dated: 26-3-1992. Even the three years tenure of the 2nd Respondent had expired in June, 1995. As the Writ Petition is pending and in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, a Miscellaneous petition was filed seeking direction not to make any further appointment pending finalisation of the writ petition. This Court by orders dated 30-5-1995 passed orders not to finalise the appointment to the post of Dean.