NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by respondent 1 in WP @ No. 3966 of 2003 challenges the decision of the learned Single Judge allowing that writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directing the appellant to relieve the respondent herein within a week of receipt of a copy of the judgment so as to enable him to pursue Ph.D. Course in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.

(2.) THE writ petitioner is an Associate Professor in Metallurgical Engineering Department of the National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, the appellant herein. According to the writ petition, the writ petitioner submitted an application for admission in Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) sponsored by AICTE through the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur. He was selected for admission in Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and was asked to appear at that institution for completing preregistration formalities. According to the writ petition, though he made an application to the appellant for relieving him to make the pre -registration visit, he had been illegally and arbitrarily denied the permission by the appellant. According to the writ petitioner, the action of the appellant was unreasonable and was also discriminatory. The appellant resisted the writ petition by pointing out that according to the norms. if on relieving a person to attend such a programme, the staff strength in that department would go below 70 percent of the fixed capacity, the permission was being denied and if the writ petitioner was to be relieved as sought for by him. the strength in that department would be reduced to 61,9% of the sanctioned strength and it was in that situation that he was not accorded permission to get himself registered for the course. It was also submitted that even originally, while forwarding his application, the writ petitioner had been informed that he would be able to pursue his course only if he could be relieved from the institute and only if on his being relieved. The staff strength would not be reduced below 70%. The plea of discrimination was denied and it was submitted that the writ petitioner was deliberately attempting to malign the department by raising the bogey of his being a member of a Scheduled Caste and was trying even to blackmail the authorities by threatening that he would commit suicide if he was not relieved. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) CHALLENGING the decision of the learned Single Judge, it is submitted that the norm was very clear and if the writ petitioner is not relieved based on such an accepted norm, the learned Single Judge should not have compelled the appellant to relieve the writ petitioner. It was also submitted that the conduct of the writ petitioner was such that it was not a fit case for interference by this Court. Subsequently, it was also brought to our notice that pursuant to an administrative decision dated 9.11.2003 of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, H.R.D., the Board of Governors had adopted the Leave Rules and Conduct Rules of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi for implementation in the Institute and this decision was taken on the day the learned Single Judge heard the writ petition and reserved orders, Therefore, when on 19.1.2004, the learned Single Judge pronounced Judgment under appeal, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Rules had already come into force and going by those Rules, no member of the teaching staff could be relieved for such a course, if the available strength of the staff gets reduced below 85%. In other words, only a quota of 15 percent could be permitted to pursue such a course. Since this Rule had come into effect, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge had become unsustainable. On behalf of the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, it was contended that the new Leave Rules had no application since the process involved in the present selection was undertaken long prior to 14.1.2004 and that this was an aspect that was pleaded before the learned Single Judge and this adoption of Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi Rules cannot affect the case on hand. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has found that others similarly situated as the writ petitioner, had been relieved and the concerned Regulation that earlier existed, was not being Implemented uniformly and in that situation, the decision of the learned Single Judge was justified and did not call for interference. In reply, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that other teachers had been denied permission on the basis of staff strength being reduced below 70% and the upholding of the claim of the writ petitioner would mean that the others who had been denied, would also have to be accommodated and it would seriously affect the students, if all these permissions are given.