LAWS(GAU)-2006-3-64

KAMAL KUMAR Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

Decided On March 21, 2006
KAMAL KUMAR (PROF.) Appellant
V/S
NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ petitioners who are the Professors in the Department of Physics, North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong, being aggrieved by attachment of the respondent No. 6, Professor of the Institute called Self Organizing Systems and bio-Physics (hereinafter referred as ISOS and Bio-physics) under NEHU to the department of Physics in which the petitioners are working, have filed this writ petition making a challenge to the same. Be it stated here that ISOS and Bio-Physics has since been abolished and as a result of such abolition, the service of the respondent No. 6 has been attached to the department of physics maintaining his status as Professor in the erstwhile Institute.

(2.) The aforesaid Institute was established under NEHU by an ordinance issued U/s. 26(1) (d) of the NEHU Act, 1973 and approved by the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India's letter dated 21.12.87 with a view to pursue Inter-School multi disciplinary Research work. The respondent No. 6 was first appointed as a Reader in Bio-Physics in the said Institute. In the year 1990, a UGC expert committee visited NEHU and the Institute, and on the basis of the report submitted by the said committee, the UGC conveyed its decision to close down the Institute. The matter pertaining to closure of the Institute was taken up by the Academic Council (AC) and Executive Council (EC) in the year 1998 and it was resolved that the Institute should not admit the students any further into M. Phil and Ph.D. programmes. Thus, according to the petitioners, for all practical purpose the Institute stood closed with the resolution adopted by the AC and EC in the meetings, held on 11th and 12th June, 1998.

(3.) The respondent No. 6 was promoted as Professor under the scheme called career Advancement on 04.04.01. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 6 could not have been promoted as such at a time when the Institute itself was virtually closed down. In addition, they have also contended that the selection committee which recommended the respondent No. 6 for such promotion was not dully constituted as required under Statue 20 of the NEHU Statute.