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

2021 Supreme(Del) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
Ashok Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Jamia Millia Islamia And Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 6515 of 2018, CM Nos. 24919 of 2018 & 29771 of 2020
Decided on : 24-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahboob Alam Inayati, Mr. Vishrut Raj, Mr. Rashid Hussain and Mr. Anubhav Mehrotra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, SC with Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. for JMI

Point of Law: Promotion - There is no prayer in the petition challenging the seniority list. So, the issue of seniority cannot be gone into.

Headnote:

Service Law - Promotion - Determination of seniority - Seeking Cancellation of promotion granted cancellation of promotion granted to Respondent No. 2- respondent No.2 was not recommended for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade)

Finding of the Court:

Petitioner has no locus to challenge the promotion of respondent No.2 to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade), firstly, because he is not a contender to the said post. Secondly, the promotion of the respondent No.2 is in the year 2017 to a promotion post in accordance with the promotion scheme and could not have been denied - Issue of seniority cannot be gone into. Moreover, persons whose seniority shall be affected have not been made party/respondents

Result: Petition rejected

JUDGMENT :

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

    “That in light of the above, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Set aside the order dated 16.04.2018 bearing file no. 3588/AK/RO/ESTT/2018 passed by the respondent no 1;

(b) Set aside the promotion of respondent no 2 granted Vide office order dated 23.03.2017 F No. UGC-CAS/RPS/RO/JMI/2017 from lecturer (senior scale to lecturer (selection grade) and all other subsequent benefits or promotions granted to her;

(c) issue any other writ, order or directions ex debito justitae in the facts and circumstances of the case”

2. In substance, the challenge of the petitioner is to an order dated April 16, 2018 whereby the representation of the petitioner dated January 11, 2018 was considered by the respondent University in terms of the directions given by this Court on March 5, 2018 in W.P.(C) 2014/2018 titled Ashok Kumar v. Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors. for his appointment as Reader in the respondent University from November 2006 instead of October 2009 and also for cancellation of promotion granted to respondent No. 2 Ms. Shikha Kapur as Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f September 24, 2006 was rejected.

3. The facts as noted from the petition are, respondent No.2 Ms. Shikha Kapoor was appointed as Lecturer in the respondent University in the month of September, 1994. She was appointed as Senior Lecturer in September, 2000. On September 24, 2006, respondent No. 2 became eligible for promotion to Lecturer (Selection Grade). It is the case of the petitioner that in the Selection Committee meeting held on November 27, 2006, respondent No.2 was not recommended for promotion to the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade). In the year, 2006, an advertisement to the post of Reader in the Department of Adult and Continuing Education was issued by the respondent University. The petitioner who had applied against the advertisement referred to above was selected to the post of Reader in the year 2006. The respondent No.2 subsequently went on study leave for a period of three years. In the year 2008, petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court bearing W.P.(C) 1202/2008 seeking a direction for his appointment as Reader in the respondent University.

4. It is noted that the counsel for the respondent during the hearing of the writ petition has referred to a communication written by the Registrar of the respondent University to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India seeking a reference to the Visitor of the respondent University for a final decision inter alia in the case of the petitioner because the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment of the petitioner as Reader was declined by the Executive Council on December 6, 2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated February 15, 2008 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court after a final decision was made by the Visitor of the respondent University. Be that as it may, it transpired that the petitioner was appointed as a Reader in the respondent University vide letter dated July 29, 2009. The petitioner joined the said position on October 21, 2009. On completion of three years, i.e., January 21, 2012, the petitioner was appointed as an Associate Professor in the respondent University. It appears that vide Office Order dated March 23, 2017, respondent No.2 was promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f September 24, 2006. It is also noted that the petitioner made a representation to the UGC seeking cancellation of the promotion of the respondent No.2 as Lecturer (Selection Grade) w.e.f September 24, 2006. No response thereto was received by him which made him file W.P.(C) 2014/2018, which was decided on March 5, 2018 as stated above. The respondent No.2 and the petitioner have been promoted as Associate Professors w.e.f September 24, 2009 and October 21, 2012 respectively

    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
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top