U R NAHAR Vs. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BONE of contention in this case is the post of the Head of Department of Sociology in the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (for short 'the University' hereinafter). The petitioner and the respondent No. 3 are the rival contenders, the University having decided in favour of respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE appointment to the post of Head of the Department is governed by the Statutes of the University, clause 8 of the Statutes of the University. Clause 8 of the Statutes relates to the composition of the faculties and terms of office. Clause 8(1)(c) of the Statutes provides that each Department shall have a Head who shall be appointed in the order of preference given in the clause. The portion relevant for the purpose of this case is Clause 8(1)(c)(i)(ii) which provides that in case there is no Professor or all Professors are on leave, Readers by rotation by seniority shall be appointed Head of the Department. There is no dispute that the post of Reader is now re -designated as Associate Professor.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, personal promotions under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Universities, Teachers and Officers (Selection for Appointment), Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1974 Act'), were considered and the Selection Committee for the purpose met on December 30, 1985. As the petitioner had not known the result of his selection, he also appeared before the Selection Committee along with respondent No. 3 and others. As the promotions are given by seniority -cum -merit, one Smt. Tara Laxman Gehlot and respondent No. 3 were selected being senior to the petitioner for promotion under Section 11 of the 1974 Act. Recommendations of the Selection Committee under Section 11 of the 1974 Act were also kept before the Syndicate at the same meeting of the Syndicate dated January 3, 1986 in which the recommendation of the Selection Committee as regards direct appointments to the posts of Associate Professors was kept. Recommendations were accepted by the Syndicate at the aforesaid meeting dated January 3, 1986 and on the same day i.e. on January 3, 1986 the respondent No. 3 was given his appointment letter. The respondent No. 3 is claiming his seniority over the petitioner on the basis that his appointment letter was dated January 3, 1986 whereas the appointment letter issued to the petitioner was of January 4, 1986.