SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Dr. Ashok K. Keshari - Appellant
Versus
Indian Institute of Technology & Others - Respondent
W.P.(C). No. 5765 of 2020, CM. APPL. No. 20827 of 2020
Decided On : 27-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Randhir Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Arjun Mitra, Advocate.

The appointment of Head of Department is at the discretion of the Director and not solely based on seniority. The petitioner's disciplinary record and penalties imposed were also considered in the decision.

Headnote:

HAG Scale - Department of Civil Engineering - 20. Head of the Department - [6th CPC, 40% of Professors eligible for AGP of Rs.12,000/- per month after six years’ of regular service in AGP of Rs.10,500/-, performance evaluation based on research publications, Ph. D supervision, teaching and consultancy service etc.] - The petitioner sought HAG Scale with effect from July 01, 2020 and appointment as Head of Civil Engineering Department. The court found that the petitioner did not meet the minimum score of 13 in the assessment for HAG Scale and was not fit for the position. The appointment of Head of Department is at the discretion of the Director and not solely based on seniority. The petitioner's disciplinary record and penalties imposed were also considered in the decision. The court dismissed the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought HAG Scale with effect from July 01, 2020 and appointment as Head of Civil Engineering Department.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner did not meet the minimum score of 13 in the assessment for HAG Scale and was not fit for the position. The appointment of Head of Department is at the discretion of the Director and not solely based on seniority. The petitioner's disciplinary record and penalties imposed were also considered in the decision. The court dismissed the petition.

Issues: Entitlement to HAG Scale and appointment as Head of Civil Engineering Department.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner did not meet the minimum score of 13 in the assessment for HAG Scale and was not fit for the position. The appointment of Head of Department is at the discretion of the Director and not solely based on seniority. The petitioner's disciplinary record and penalties imposed were also considered in the decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “Under the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(a) issue appropriate writ, order and/or directions to the respondents to pay to the Petitioner salary, emolument in the scale of H.A.G with effect from 1. 7 .2020;

(b) quash and set aside O.M. No.IITDC/ICON/4(3)/2020/249353 dated 11.08.2020 issued by Respondent no.1and appoint the Petitioner as Head of Civil Engineering Department of Respondent no.1; AND

(c) issue such other, further and consequential directions that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he joined IIT Delhi in August 1997 as a Lecturer and became Professor on August 11, 2008 in the Department of Civil Engineering. He has been serving the Civil Engineering Department in IIT for the last 23 years. In the last five years, he has published 16 papers in the peer reviewed International Journals and presented 49 papers in national and international conferences.

3. That vide notification issued through email dated May 23, 2020, the respondent No.1 invited applications from eligible candidates to be placed in HAG Scale. On June 05, 2020 petitioner applied through the institute online portal for the same i.e., claiming HAG Scale. However, the scale has been denied to him in a wrongful manner. It is the case of the petitioner and so contended by Mr. Randhir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be placed in HAG Scale with effect from July 01, 2020.

4. According to Mr. Jain, the petitioner vide his email dated July 17, 2020 sought the reasons from the respondent No.1 for denying the said scale to him as according to him, the said scale has been awarded to many faculty members junior to him and those having less publications.

5. Mr. Jain stated that in response to the petitioner’s email, the respondent No.1 vide email dated July 17, 2020 conveyed to the petitioner that only Dean or Member of Committee would tell the process followed while awarding HAG Scale. Mr. Jain has also referred to a subsequent email dated July 19, 2020 of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 for reconsidering its decision attaching therewith his CV and summary of last five years. In response to this email, the respondent No.1 stated that they are following elaborate process of scrutiny and point based system for selection of HAG Professors and has referred the case of the petitioner to Mr. Sudipto Mukherjee to check any flaws or issues with the process followed in case of the petitioner.

6. That apart, it is the submission of Mr. Jain that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner has not been appointed as the Head of the Department of the Civil Engineering. He has drawn my attention to the memorandum dated August 11, 2020 issued by the respondent No.1 IIT appointing Heads of various departments. His grievance is primarily against the appointment of respondent No.2 as Head of Department of Civil Engineering in an arbitrary manner while denying the petitioner his rightful claim to the said position. This according to Mr. Jain is contrary to the practice prevailed in the IIT to appoint the Senior most Professor as Head of the Department.

7. According to Mr. Jain, the appointment being a public appointment, has to be in terms of criteria to be notified in advance. Not only this, the procedure has to confirm to legal and constitutional provisions. It has to qualify and pass the test of being fair and reasonable. However, respondent No.1 has not framed any rules for considering the Professors for being placed in HAG Scale nor there are any rules and regulations for appointing Heads of Departments. In the absence of rules and regulat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top