MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, a Professor, is questioning the legality of the appointment of the respondent No. 6, a Reader, as Head of the Centre for Science Education in the North Eastern Hill University, Shillong ("nehu" for short) by overlooking his case for re-appointment to that post.

(2.) THE material facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that in terms of the resolution No. EC:83:94:5:01 of the Executive Council of NEHU, the following Centres were established in the NEHU, namely, (i) Centre for Adult and Continuing Education, (ii) Centre for Rural Development, (iii) Centre for Cultural and Literary Studies, (iv) Centre for Creative Arts, (v) Centre for Science Education, (vi) Centre for Eco-Development, (vii) Centre for Applied Statistics and (viii) Centre for Distance Education, which are equivalent to Department of Studies within the meaning of Section 2 (g) of the North Eastern Hill University Act, 1973. According to the petitioner, only one faculty position of Professor/reader for NEHU was sanctioned in the 6th Plan. The petitioner joined the Centre for Science Education as Reader in the year 1984 and was subsequently appointed as the Head of this Centre in September, 1985. It is the case of the petitioner that as on that date no one else except him was appointed as a Reader in the Centre as only one post of Professor/reader had been sanctioned by the University Grants Commission. In the year 1991, he was promoted to the post of Professor, and continued to work there as the Head of this Centre till the following development took place. The respondent authorities vide the Notification dated 4. 9. 1998 notified a regulation under Ordinance OA-3 and OA-11 of the NEHU Ordinances whereby it was declared that the existing Centres would become units within the new Centres. It was further notified that the Centre for Science Education, Centre for Adult and Continuing Education and Centre for Distance Education would form the Centre for Supportive Learning Systems (CSLS ). Consequently, the respondent No. 6 was appointed as the Unit-in-Charge for the Unit of Science Education vide the notification dated 3. 11. 2001 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Establishment, NEHU. Terming the action of the respondent authorities in making the existing Centres as Units within the new Centres as reduction in the status of the Centre for Science Education, he approached this Court in W. P. (C) No. 183 (SH) of 2004 for appropriate relief. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent authorities subsequently realized that the exercise was not in order and accordingly issued the notification dated 14. 10. 2004 abolishing the newly created Units with immediate effect with the result that the Centre for Science Education came to be revived i. e. by restoring the status quo ante. This notification was followed by the consequential notification dated 8. 11. 2004 terminating the appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the Unit-in-Charge of the Unit for Science Education. However, much to his consternation, the respondent authorities issued another notification dated 8. 11. 2004 appointing the respondent No. 6 as the Head of the Centre of Science Education.

(3.) BOTH the respondent authorities and the respondent No. 6 contested the writ petition and filed their respective affidavits-in-opposition. The respondent authorities deny that the respondent No. 6 was appointed as the Head of the Centre for Science Education in deviation from the requirements as contained in Statute 7 of the Statutes and assert that when the petitioner had already completed his term as the Head of the Centre, the question of removing him from the said post does not arise. The respondent authorities point out that the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Centre for different periods, namely, for a period of 3 years w. e. f. 11. 11. 1985, for a period of another three years w. e. f. 11. 11. 1988 to 10. 11. 1991, again for a period of 3 years w. e. f. 11. 11. 1991 and last for the period of three years w. e. f. 11. 11. 1994 to 10. 11. 1997. With the re-organization of the Centre into Units, the petitioner was apointed as the Head of the Centre for Supportive Learning System for a period of three years vide the Notification dated 21. 9. 2001, while the respondent No. 6 was appointed as In-charge of the Unit for Science Education vide the Notification dated 3. 11. 2001, which he joined w. e. f. 8. 7. 2002. According to the respondent authorities, the petitioner did not take over the charge as the Head of the Centre for Supportive Learning System. The petitioner continued to work as Head of the Centre for Science Education till the year 1998 when it was reduced to a Unit. There was no illegality in re-organizing the Centres into Units, which were done in accordance with the Regulations, Statutes, Ordinance and Act of the University. Similarly, there was also no illegality in abolishing these Units and in reviving the various Centres. It is asserted by the respondent authorities that the respondent No. 6 was transferred along with his post from Pachhunga University College (PUC), Aizawl, and was posted in the Centre for Science Education in terms of the Notification dated 7. 11. 2004, and is accordingly eligible for the Head of the Centre for Science Education. It is the specific case of the respondent authorities that the respondent No. 6 became a teacher of that Centre following his transfer along with the post of Reader and is, therefore, qualified to be appointed as the Head of the Centre and that the petitioner has absolutely no right to continue as the Head of the Centre. It is, therefore, submitted by the respondent authorities that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with cost.