RAJKUMAR PODDAR Vs. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.98 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No. 85(SH)/97 thereby dismissing the same as devoid of any merit with cost of Rs. 1000/- payable within two weeks to the respondent-University.

(2.) Few basic facts may now be noted : The writ Petitioner-Appellant holds a Master Degree in Chemistry with Ph.D., with specialisation in Inorganic Chemistry having started his career as Pool Officer, he was eventually absorbed as a Lecturer in May, 1978 and in course of time became Reader in March, 1985.

(3.) It was during the academic year 1976-77 that the University Grant Commission sanctioned a post of Professor in Chemistry with specialisation in Industrial Chemistry. This post was held by professor T.S.B. Narasaraju till May, 1995 and fell vacant on his retirement. Sometime in the month of March, 1996 the post which was initially sanctioned for Professor in Chemistry with specialisation in Industrial Chemistry was stealthily changed from Industrial Chemistry to Physical Chemistry. The writ Petitioner's allegation is that it was in connivance of the Respondents 4 and 5. According to the writ Petitioner-Appellant this new specialisation was introduced with a view to accommodate the respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 2 was approached for adding a new specialisation in Physical Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry apart from specialisation in Industrial Chemistry for the post of Professor. The writ Petitioner Appellant submitted a representation to the Vice Chancellor through the Head of the Department against the creation of new specialisation attached to the post. An employment notice dated 19.6.96 (filed as Annexure-D to the writ petition) was published far the post of Professor in Chemistry with specialisation in Physical Chemistry/Inorganic Chemistry/Industrial Chemistry. It was the Appellant's case that Professor in the Department has no power to create new specialisation to the post. His another grievance is the representation made by him was not disposed of. But the fact remains that the writ Petitioner Appellant also applied for the post of Professor in pursuance to the employment notice, Annexure-D. The applications received were processed and screened by the Screening Committee which consisted of amongst others, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Here again the writ Petitioner Appellant has contended that the Constitution of the Screening Committee was illegal and the Respondents 4 and 5 were biased in favour of the respondent No. 6.