J S RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the Professors (CAS) working with respondent No.3-Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Gwalior (for short, the 'University'). In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the advertisement dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure P-1), whereby the University intended to fill up the posts of Professor and Head of the Department. It is prayed that all the petitioners have a preferential right to occupy and continue on the post of Head of the Department.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioners are working as Professors. In addition, they have been entrusted with the work of Head of the Department (HOD) of their department. In para 5.1 of the petition, the petitioners have mentioned the dates of their initial appointment as Professor, date of appointment as HOD and also the name of the department. The appointment orders of the petitioners as HOD are cumulatively filed as Annexure P-2. It is contended that the petitioners were Teachers/Professors in Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyala (for short, the "Vishwavidyalaya"). However, pursuant to Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 2009 (No.4 of 2009) (for brevity, the 'Adhiniyam'), the petitioners continued as Teachers/employees of the University. It is contended that there is no sanctioned post like "Professor and HOD" and the Professor is a different post from where by way of nomination under the Adhiniyam, one can be made HOD. It is urged that the petitioners' nomination by the Vice Chancellor as HOD is in consonance with the Adhiniyam. It is further submitted that advertisement runs contrary to the Adhiniyam. If the advertisement is permitted to be translated into reality, it will have an impact of bringing fresh recruitees as HOD and placing them over and above the petitioners. This will also result into petitioners' discontinuance as HOD because the stand of the respondents is that their appointment as HOD is only a 'stop gap arrangement'.

(3.) Shri N.S.Kirar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are senior and experienced Professors of the University. They have acquired experience of the post of HOD pursuant to their nomination by Annexure P-2. If the impugned advertisement is permitted to be implemented, a fresh recruitee may come and become HOD, which is neither permissible under the Adhiniyam nor will be in the interest of administration. It will take away the valuable right of the petitioners to become HOD or continue as HOD. It is further urged that in absence of any post of "Professor and HOD", the advertisement is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, Shri Kirar relied on certain provisions including Sections 33 and 57 of the Adhiniyam and further placed reliance on (N.K.Jain vs. State of M.P. and others, 2013 3 MPLJ 237); (Bharat Prasad Shukla vs. State of MP and others, 2009 3 MPJR 133); and, (Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. A.N.Lahiri, 1997 AIR(SC) 2259).