S.K. GUPTA Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two intra-Court writ petitions were taken up for adjudication by the learned single Judge, namely CWP No. 15305 of 2008 titled as "Amit Bansal v. Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak and Ors." (for short 'Ist petition'), in which he sought writ in the nature of quo warranto to quash the promotion of S.K. Gupta (appellant herein) by order dated 21.9.2006 to the post of Professor, being contrary to the AICTE norms regarding number of years of experience and another CWP No. 6227 of 2009 titled as "Dr. S.K. Gupta v. Maharshi Dayanand University Rohtak" (for short 'IInd petition'), in which he has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the enquiry conducted by the University, show-cause notice issued on 24.3.2009 and also the enquiry report given on 12.3.2009 being without jurisdiction, illegal and beyond the powers of the University. In respect of the 1st petition, it has been observed by the learned single Judge that it deserves to fail for the reason that holder of office is not a holder of public office which would require to be annulled by issuance of a writ in the manner as sought for and the IInd petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed holding that an unaided self-financing college is still to conform to the University directives as regards approval of appointments so that persons who hold various posts have the requisite qualification that an expert body like AICTE has laid down. The failure of compliance of AICTE norms taken as a ground for withdrawing the approval granted to the College for appointment of the appellant as Professor, has been approved. However, the learned single Judge had directed that the College will be at liberty to seek fresh consideration in the light of number of years of experience that appellant has secured during the pendency of the proceedings or by competitive selection method, if there is any other candidate, who is fit for consideration and the College would prepare a panel and make selection and seek approval of the University/College in accordance with law,

(2.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant but before we delve into the respective contentions of the parties it would be appropriate to give a few relevant facts.

(3.) The appellant is working in Vaish College, which is an Unaided Self-Financed Technical Professional College being managed and run by the Vaish Education Society, registered under the Societies Act, 1961. The college is approved by All India Council for Technical Education and recognized by Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana and is affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Lecturer in the year 1995 in Vaish College of Engineering and was promoted as Assistant Professor in the Vaish College in the Selection Committee meeting held on 1.1.2001. Later on, the College authorities thought it fit and proper to get the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Professor approved from respondent-University, therefore, appellant had to face another Selection Committee in the year 2004 and his appointment as Assistant Professor was approved by University on 8.2.2005. He was further considered for the post of Professor by the Selection Committee on 17.9.2006 which was also approved by the University on 3.4.2008. The appellant is stated to have 15 years of teaching experience and was upgraded as Principal of the College.