NARINDER SINGH POONIA Vs. S.M. DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Poonia has been heard at length so also Shri Bagadia. In the fitness and for the purpose of assisting the court on factual matters Shri Bagadia pointed out that Respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 6 have filed affidavits and denied the allegations made by Petitioner Dr. Poonia against them.

(2.) Dr. Poonia submitted that he has been appointed as "Professor" by Respondent No. 6 - Devi Ahilya University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University' for convenience) as a candidate for direct recruitment to such post and therefore, either he can be continued in service or dismissed if it can be done legally but in no case he can be "demoted". He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Shrivastava v. Vikram University and others, 1995 AIR(SC) 1694. In the said judgment Supreme Court held that Readers, Professors promoted under merit promotion scheme form a distinct class from cadre employees, namely direct recruited Readers, Professors. Supreme Court further held that direct recruit and promotee Readers and Professors cannot be treated equally for the purpose of seniority and promotion. Fixing inter se seniority between them on basis of continuous officiation would be illegal. He pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam (22 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'Adhiniyam' for convenience) there is only one source of recruitment of University teachers namely, Professors and Readers and even of Lecturers is contemplated, even that source is by way of direct recruitment. If that is so. and if under merit promotion scheme as recommended by the Commission which was adopted by the University, and departmental candidate is to be promoted, he would be so promoted de hors Section and would obviously be an ex-cadre Reader or Professor as the case may be. Placing reliance on these observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rashmi Srivastava's case. Dr. Poonia submitted that he was appointed to the post of professor as a directly recruited candidate and, therefore, Respondent No. 6 was not entitled to demote him. He submitted that the act of demoting him committed by the University through its concerned officers is bad in law and, therefore, the said order passed by University needs to be quashed by issuing appropriate writ.

(3.) Shri Bagadia submitted that a Writ Petition was filed in this Court bearing No. MP. 1926/92 which was decided on 20-10-1994 and in the judgment and order deciding the said petition this Court passed following order in last sentences of the judgment and order. For the purpose of deciding this matter the said sentences need to be quoted,-