Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Professor Udaya Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru University - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5496 of 2020
Decided On : 14-09-2020
Abhik Chimni, Advocate, Mayank Goyal, Advocate, Ankita Shah, Advocate, Monika Arora, Advocate
The Court established that the rejection of the EOL application was arbitrary and against the provisions of the University's Ordinance, and directed the University to sanction EOL to the Petitioner.
Headnote:
EOL - University Professor's Leave Application - 2018 Ordinance - 2016 Ordinance - 2018 Ordinance - 2016 Ordinance
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a renowned scholar and University Professor, applied for Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) to pursue a Fellowship at Nantes Institute of Advanced Study, France. The application was rejected by the Executive Council (EC) of the University citing the 20% ceiling on the number of faculty members allowed to be absent on leave as per the 2016 Ordinance. The Petitioner contended that the 2018 Ordinance, which does not include the 20% ceiling, should apply to his case. The University resisted the application, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the rejection of the EOL application was arbitrary and against the provisions of the University's Ordinance. It held that the Petitioner's case was within the 20% ceiling as per the information provided to the EC. The Court also noted that the Dean and Chairperson had recommended the Petitioner's application, and the Petitioner's absence would not hinder the functioning of the University. The Court directed the University to sanction EOL to the Petitioner to enable him to pursue his Fellowship.
Issues: Applicability of the 2018 Ordinance or the 2016 Ordinance in granting EOL to the Petitioner, and the justification for the rejection of the EOL application.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rejection of the EOL application was arbitrary and against the provisions of the University's Ordinance. It found that the Petitioner's case was within the 20% ceiling as per the information provided to the EC, and the Dean and Chairperson had recommended the application. The Court directed the University to sanction EOL to the Petitioner.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the University to sanction EOL to the Petitioner to enable him to pursue his Fellowship. The Court awarded costs of Rs. 20,000 in favor of the Petitioner due to the illegal and arbitrary rejection of the EOL application.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Petitioner herein joined the Respondent University as a Professor on 01.10.2015 in the Centre for English Studies, School of Language Literature and Culture Studies. Petitioner, as averred in the petition, is a renowned scholar in his discipline of Literary Studies. He has been teaching English Literature and Cultural Studies for more than 23 years and has also researched and published extensively on English literature, literary and cultural theory, autobiography studies, modern Indian literature and cultural studies. Petitioner has to his credit prestigious fellowships at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study at Nehru Memorial Museum & Library and Leverhulme Visiting Professorship at Newcastle University, United Kingdom. He also held the position of Chairperson of the Centre for English Studies from 12.01.2017 to 14.03.2018 and from 07.05.2018 to 11.01.2019.
2. On 21.01.2020, Petitioner, as required by the established procedure, wrote to the Registrar through the Dean (Head of the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies) and the Chairperson (Head of the Centre for English Studies), and applied for Extra Ordinary Leave (hereinafter referred to as ''EOL'') without pay for a period of 9 months, starting from 01.10.2020 to 30.06.2021, with vacation leave from 01.07.2021 to 14.07.2021, in order to pursue a Fellowship at Nantes Institute of Advanced Study, France.
3. According to the Petitioner, the Dean and the Chairperson who are the Academic and Administrative Officers of the Centre, recommended and forwarded his application to the Competent Authority. However, his application was rejected vide Resolution No. 6.6 passed in 284th meeting of the Executive Council (hereinafter referred to as ''EC'') held on 18.02.2020 and thus the EOL was not sanctioned.
4. A letter dated 03.03.2020 was sent to the Petitioner communicating rejection of his Application for grant of EOL in the 284th meeting of the EC of the University. In response to the letter dated 03.03.2020, Petitioner wrote a letter dated 05.03.2020 to the Vice-Chancellor of the Respondent University, through proper channel, requesting him to furnish reason(s) for rejection of his application. Petitioner also stated therein that he met all parameters/criteria for availing EOL for the purpose of pursuing the Fellowship. However, there was no response to this e-mail sent by Petitioner.
5. Petitioner thereafter sent an e-mail dated 09.03.2020 to the Registrar asking for reasons for the alleged arbitrary rejection of his request and reiterated that he met all the parameters/criteria as per Rules and Ordinances for grant of EOL. Reminders via e-mails were sent on 16.04.2020 and 23.04.2020. Finally the Respondent responded to the Petitioner''s e-mail on 24.04.2020, only intimating that his request for grant of EOL was not sanctioned but no reason was furnished, yet again, in the said e-mail.
6. Through a letter dated 12.06.2020, Respondent conveyed to the Petitioner that the EC Minutes did not contain any reason for not acceding to the Petitioner''s request, as leave is not a matter of right of an employee. Petitioner, vide e-mail dated 07.07.2020 again requested the Registrar to clarify reason(s) for rejection of his leave application, so that he could satisfy the EC regarding the ground(s) on which the request for leave was rejected. He also expressed his willingness to address and remedy any shortfall in the application regarding any parameter/criteria for leave. The grievance of the Petitioner was again not redressed and the Registrar vide e-mail dated 07.07.2020 simply responded by stating that he endorsed the earlier reply sent to the Petitioner and as Secretary of the EC, had nothing more to advise. Having no other course of action open to him, Petitioner filed the present petition.
7. Mr. Abhik Chimni learned counsel for Petitioner contends that the order passed in 284th meeting of the Executive Council on 18.02.2020 is a non-speaking and
