GOVIND PRASAD MISHRA Vs. RANI DURGAWATI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the promotion of the respondent No. 4 Smt. Karuna S. Verma by the respondents 1 and 2 to the post of professor under the "Merit Promotion Scheme" in the Department of Biology in Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur. As per the petitioner, he is public spirited person and is a scientist in veternary discipline. He is an Ex -Member of Board of Management of Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur as also an Ex -Member of Executive Council of Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya (respondent No. 1). The petitioner claims interest in proper and efficient functioning of the respondent No. 1 University and, therefore, his locus standi to file the present petition in public interest. The petitioner has clarified that he is not personally prejudiced against any of the respondents, including the respondent No. 4 whose appointment he has challenged, and the petition has been filed purely in public interest.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred that the respondent No. 1 Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, has been incorporated as University specified under second schedule to the M. P. Vishwa Vidyalaya Adhiniyam 1973 (hereinafter referred to as V. V. Adhiniyam) and is, therefore, governed by the provisions thereof which provide for appointment to the teaching posts as per the procedure laid down in section 49. Sub -section (2) of section 49 of the V. V. Adhiniyam provides for constitution of selection committee for selection to the post of professor, Reader or Lecturer or to any other teaching post of the University. The University Grants Commission promulgated a "Merit Promotion Scheme" which was adopted for implementation by the respondent No. 1 University under Ordinance 69 laying down the procedure for appointment of teachers under the said scheme subject to restrictions contained in the ordinance. One such restriction was that not more than 1/3rd of the number of total permanent posts of Lecturers or Readers within a department may hold such merit promotions as next height level at any given time. Further, the promotion as Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme was to be restricted to not more than two Readers within the department in the duration of the plan period. The petitioner contends that in ail seven Readers were borne on the department of Biological / Micro Science and out of them three had already been promoted to hold the post of Professor under the Merit Promotion Scheme leaving no room for any further Promotion in view of the restriction of 1/3rd which already stood exceeded. The petitioner has further pointed out the Ordinance 69 required the respondent to refer the work presented by individual teacher to at least two referees in the subject / discipline concerned and the evaluation reports of these referees to be made available to the selection Committee, which should have three outside experts, for consideration of such cases, but this procedure was not followed. The Selection Committee, which interviewed the candidates on 28.11.96, had been constituted for considering the cases for direct recruitment to the post of Professor, but she was found less meritorious and another person was selected; but the same Selection Committee is then said to have recommended her for promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme on the same day, which clearly spells out the undue and under served favor having been granted to the respondent No. 4 in her promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme without adherence to the procedure prescribed therefore. The petitioner contends that prior consultation with the Dean of the faculty was not made and signatures of the Selection Committee constituted for making selection under the Career Advancement Scheme, had been obtained although on the very day, the Committee had not recommended her for appointment under the said Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioner has referred to a representation having been made one Bhagwati Dhar Bajpai to the Chancellor against illegal promotion of the respondent No. 4, but since the illegality has not been removed by the respondents, this petition has been brought in public interest.

(3.) THE respondent No. 4 has also pointed out that in the meanwhile, one person, viz., Dr. Oomachand has retired on 28.2.98 and since now a post has become available, the existing number of Professors even as per the interpretation placed by the petitioner on the Ordinance 69 of the Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, does not exceed the prescribed number.