Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
S.V. Bhatt, J.
Kahkashan Tabassum – Appellant
Vs.
Registrar, Maulana Azad National University and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 36581, 37714 and 38240 of 2013
Decided On : 22-09-2017
Constitution of India - Article 226 – 12 - Working as Assistant Professors - Consequential declaration - Termination for non-complying with condition - Circumstances leading to the filing of writ petitions and the orders impugned in these writ petitions are similar. The issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order - Petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring order of respondent-University in terminating the services of petitioners, working as Assistant Professors, as illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice and unconstitutional - Petitioners pray for a consequential declaration that they are entitled to be retained and continued as Assistant Professors, CS & IT Departments without reference to the National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification with all consequential benefits - Held, Petitioners have shown and established discriminatory attitude in adhering to the condition relied for terminating the services of petitioners. This Court is of the view that the respondent in the decision making process under challenge acted arbitrarily, violated principles of natural justice and did not maintain equality among similarly situated candidates, conforming to the requirement of Act 14 of the Constitution of India. The employment in respondent-University is governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Universit - University cannot act on whimsical or momentary considerations, in the sense if the respondent-University was particular to consider the candidates with NET or Ph.D. qualification and appoint for posts of Assistant Professors, it should not have subjected the petitioners to further selection process or select them - Option to relax the qualification was reserved for decision subject to the response the notification gets. - As already noted, the petitioners cave substantially complied with the condition in the appointment order Petitioners have either written the examinations within the period of two years or were awaiting the result. Dr. Kahkashan Tabassum completed Ph.D. and still her services have been terminated as not possessing NET qualification. Terminating the petitioners from service by referring to condition in the appointment order is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The termination orders are set aside - Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, stand closed.
S.V. Bhatt, J.
1. Heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, holding for Mr. S. Khader Mohiuddin, Mr. Venkateswarlu Posani, Mr. M. Ramgopal Rao for petitioners and Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy for respondents. The petitioners are different in these writ petitions but respondents are same. The circumstances leading to the filing of writ petitions and the orders impugned in these writ petitions are similar. The issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
Praver in W.P. Nos. 36581 and 38240 of 2013:
2. The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring order No. MANUU/ER-1(A)(731)/F. No. 170/2013-2014/1080 dated 02.12.2013 of respondent-University in terminating the services of petitioners, working as Assistant Professors, as illegal, opposed to principles of natural justice and unconstitutional. The petitioners pray for a consequential declaration that they are entitled to be retained and continued as Assistant Professors, CS & IT Departments without reference to the National Eligibility Test (NET) qualification with all consequential benefits.
Praver in W.P. No. 37714 of 2013
3. The petitioner prays for Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in imposing condition on petitioner to clear NET in the relevant subject within two years, in orders of selection and appointment vide No. MANU U/Admn. III/F. 162/2011-2012 dated 25.11.2011 and No. MANUU/Admn. III/F. 162/2011-2012/2036 dated 08.12.2011 and issuing the order of termination for non-complying with condition vide No. MANUU/ER-1(A) (730)/F. No. 169/2013-14/1079 dated 02.12.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioner prays for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate him into service as Assistant Professor in Information Technology with all consequential benefits.
Averments in W.P. No. 36581 of 2013:
4. Dr. K. Kahkashan Tabassum is the petitioner and she is a graduate in B.E. (CSC) and an M. Tech in Computers from JNTU, Hyderabad. The petitioner claims to have teaching experience of 13 years. In the year 2007, the petitioner applied for Ph.D., in Philosophy, Computer Science and Engineering and she has been awarded Ph.D., by the JNTU. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to apply for the post of Assistant Professor, Computer Informatics, CS & IT Department. The petitioner pursuant to Employment Notification No. 25/2011 dated 27.01.2011 applied for the post of Assistant Processor. According to petitioner, she satisfies all the qualifications prescribed for consideration and appointment. According to petitioner, the JNTU awarded Ph.D., to her in the month of February, 2013. The minimum qualifications stipulate either completion of NET/or possessing Ph.D. The conation, according to petitioner, is complied with before the expiry of two year period granted by respondents because Ph.D., was awarded to petitioner by the JNTU in the month of March, 2013. On 11.02.2013, the petitioner submitted representation to incorporate acquisition of Ph.D. by her in the SR. the 1st respondent through letter dated 01.03.2013 called upon the petitioner to explain whether the completion of Ph.D. is under intimation to the authority or not. The petitioner states that the letter dated 01.03.2013 has been replied by stating that in the application submitted by petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor, all the details have been furnished and in the interview, it has been brought to the notice of selection committee members that the Ph.D. thesis has been submitted and awaiting the award of Ph.D. Therefore, according to her, then is no suppression of any detail or the requirement of permission of college in a situation like this is not required. Now, reverting back to the condition imposed in the appointment order, it is stated that according to UGC guidelines, one is required to possess either Ph.D. or complete NET/State Eligibility Test (SET). In the case on hand, with the com
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
