Point of Law: If the intent of the rule making authority is to bestow the benefit of seniority, for the purpose of HOD, only from the date of continuous service in the grade or post, the same cannot be faulted. This I say so, for holding the position of headship, the actual experience as Professor is definitely a relevant consideration.

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM APPL. 2756/2021 in W.P.(C) 1008/2021 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 7946/2021 (for early hearing) in W.P.(C) 13219/2018 CM APPL. 7433/2021 (for early hearing) in W.P.(C) 1008/2021

For the reasons stated in the applications and the counsel for the respondent / University having no objection on the applications being allowed, the same are allowed and the writ petitions are taken up for hearing.

Applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 13219/2018

W.P.(C) 1008/2021

1. As these two petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and the issues raised in these petitions are inter-connected, with the consent of the counsels for the parties, they have been finally heard and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The writ petition being W.P.(C) 13219/2018 has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondent University to grant seniority in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi University Act, 1922, Statutes made there under and the UGC Regulations dated June 30, 2010. Whereas W.P.(C) 1008/2021 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the notification dated December 17, 2020, whereby the respondent No.2, namely Prof. Surender Kumar, has been appointed as the Head of the Department (‘HOD’, for short) of the Department of Economics, for a term of three years.

3. The common facts in both the writ petitions, as urged by Mr. Shikhar Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner started his career in the respondent University in the year 1997, when he was appointed as a Reader, which post w.e.f October 1, 2006 was re-designated as Associate Professor. Thereafter, he was promoted as Professor w.e.f. October 16, 2003 under the Career Advancement Scheme (‘CAS’, for short), 1998 vide Office Order dated July 1, 2015. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner has been given all financial benefits as Professor w.e.f. October 16, 2003.

4. The submission of Mr. Khare with regard to the seniority is that the petitioner having been promoted as Professor w.e.f. October 16, 2003, his seniority must relate back to the said date and based on the said seniority, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as HOD, Department of Economics. In this regard, he submits that the respondent University has prepared two seniority lists wherein he has been placed at the bottom, i.e., as the junior most and in fact junior to even those Professors who had not even joined the respondent University as a Reader when the petitioner was serving as one. Mr. Khare submits that the petitioner has made various representations and had also met Pro-Vice-Chancellor with regard to his grievances both on seniority and denial of the headship of the Department of Economics. Unfortunately, the request of the petitioner for grant of both has not been acceded to. According to Mr. Khare, the respondent University has failed to appreciate the mandate of the UGC Regulations that the seniority of a promotee has to be computed from the date of eligibility and not from the date of joining. The petitioner having been promoted from October 16, 2003, i.e., the date of eligibility, his seniority must relate back to the said date. Even under Statute 37 and Ordinance XI, the petitioner is entitled to the seniority w.e.f. October 16, 2003 as, the petitioner has been in continuous service in the rank of Professor from that date and has been paid all back-wages and arrears attached to the rank of the Professor with effect from that date. Alternatively, Mr. Khare states, that Statute 37 and Ordinance XI, which deny the seniority from the date of eligibility, is arbitrary and ultra-vires the Act. The other submission made by Mr. Khare is that even in both the seniority lists, the Professors who were interviewed for promotion with petitioner on the same date on March 30, 2015 have been placed higher than the petitioner. In this regard, he has named Prof. Ram