CHANDRAMA PRAKASH UPADHYAY Vs. HARI SINGH GOUR VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on admission and interim relief.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel for the respondents has invited attention of this Court to the order dated 21.7.2014 passed in W.P. No. 10744/2014 (s) and analogous petitions and contended that since the Coordinate Bench of this Court has refused to entertain the petition and has relegated the matter to the Executive Council of the University for taking a decision in the matter in terms of the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), this writ petition is also required to be disposed of in the same manner. Much emphasis has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the respondents on availability of the alternative remedy to the petitioner under the Act aforesaid and it has been contended that since other petitions have been disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove, this writ petition may also be disposed of in the like manner to maintain the parity and judicial discipline.

(3.) PER contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has heavily placed reliance in the cases of U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh & others v. Daya Ram Saroj & others - : (2007) 2 SCC 138 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India & others - : (2007) 4 SCC 54 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jodhraj s/o Khem Chandra Sindhi vs. Bhuteshwar Mahadev Mandir Trust, Mandsaur - : 2011 (4) MPLJ 673 and contended that in view of the availability of the statutory remedy, the matter has to be relegated to the competent authority of the University to decide the matter and take a decision and there is no question of deferring from the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. M.M. Deshmukh and others and companion cases. It is contended that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as he has not cleared the National Eligibility Test and for that reason, since he was not entitled to the exemption granted in view of the fact that he has obtained a degree of Ph.D. much before coming into force, the regulation made by the University Grants Commission in the year 2009 in respect of grant of Ph.D. degree. That being so, since he has not obtained the NET certification, his initial appointment was itself bad. In view of the well settled law, it is contended that if an illegal appointment was made, the observation of rules of natural justice was not necessary and, therefore, the order of dispensing with the services of the petitioner was rightly issued. That being so, since the matter is in seizin before the Executive Council of the University, no adjudication of the merits of the claim made in the present writ petition is necessary by this Court at this stage.