JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The most accepted methodology of the working of a Government or Governmental agency is fairness. In the event of there being any lack of fairness, there ought not to be any hesitations on the part of the law Courts to deprecate the same. The law Courts exist for the society and in the event, redressal is sought for, and in the event, the law Court feels it expedient that the grievance may otherwise have some justification, it would be a plain exercise of judicial function to rise upto the occasion and administer the justice in accordance with law. The contextual facts depict that the writ petitioner has been working with Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University as Senior Professor for about last thirty years. He is otherwise a highly qualified person and obviously maintained a good name and reputation at the University and there is as a matter of fact no grievance of inefficiency existing against the writ petitioner The factual matrix of the situation depicts that the writ petitioner was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor as Rector of the University subject to the ratification of the Executive Council in terms of the Statute (Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972 - for short "the Act"). This appointment however, as appears from the record, has been subjected to the confirmation or ratification of the Executive Council. For convenience sake, the order of appointment, dated 13-11-1997 is set out here in below:

(2.) The matter however, came up for ratification before the Executive Council and the Executive Council by its order dated 17-1-1998 did ratify such appointment though however, for a limited period viz., upto the afternoon of 17-1-1998. For convenience sake, the order of the Executive Council dated 17-1-1998 is set out herein below:

(3.) It is this order which is under challenge before the learned single Judge on the ground that the Executive Council ought not to have withdrawn the benefits conferred upon the writ petitioner, specially after ratification of the benefit upto a particular date. The learned single Judge while dealing with the matter did record his acceptance in regard to such submission and did in fact pass an order to the effect that the action of the University cannot be said to be sustainable in law and accordingly impugned order was quashed and the respondents were directed to continue the petitioner as Rector of the first respondent-University.