Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Syeda Afshana Bhat – Appellant
Versus
University of Kashmir & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 135 of 2021
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Delay and latches/Waiver and acquiescence - University of Kashmir - UGC Regulations - The court found the petition not maintainable due to delay and latches, acquiescence, and waiver. The impugned order/communications were found to be justified by the University based on the UGC Regulations and the qualifications possessed by the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Associate Professor at the University of Kashmir, sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash orders/communications issued by the University regarding the placement and seniority of the petitioner and respondent No.6. The petitioner and respondent No.6 were appointed as Lecturers in the Media Education and Research Centre [MERC] of the University in 2002. The petitioner challenged the preferential treatment accorded to respondent No.6, leading to the filing of the instant petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition not maintainable due to delay and latches, acquiescence, and waiver. The impugned order/communications were found to be justified by the University based on the UGC Regulations and the qualifications possessed by the parties involved.
Issues: The issues involved delay and latches, acquiescence, and waiver, as well as the interpretation and application of the UGC Regulations in determining the placement and seniority of the petitioner and respondent No.6.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's delay in challenging the impugned order and subsequent communications, as well as her acquiescence in the actions of the University, barred her from maintaining the petition. Additionally, the court found that the University's actions were justified based on the UGC Regulations and the qualifications possessed by the parties involved.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court, deeming it not maintainable due to delay and latches, acquiescence, and waiver, as well as on merits.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner is an Associate Professor in Media Education and Research Centre of the University of Kashmir ['the University']. She is aggrieved of and has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing following orders/communications issued by the University:-
(a) Order No. F (Placement. Sr. Scale-CAS) RC/KU/10/124 dated 19-05-2010;
(b) Communication No. F(Seniority-Ap. MERC) Admn TW/KU/19/6176 dated 27-04-2019; and
(c) F(MERC-Seniority)Adm-TW-218464 dated 08-01-2021. The order/communications hereinabove shall be hereinafter referred to as impugned order/communications respectively.
2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the petitioner and the rebuttal thereto given by the respondents, it would be appropriate to notice material facts.
3. The petitioner and respondent No.6 applied for the solitary post of Lecturer in Media Education and Research Centre [MERC] of the University, notified for direct recruitment vide advertisement notice No. F.10 (Apptt-Gen)Adm/TW dated 22.01.2002. In the selection process, the petitioner came to be selected against the post and was, accordingly, appointed by the University vide Order No. F.10 (Apptt-Gen) Adm/TW/02 dated 16.05.2002 as Lecturer MERC. Vide same order the respondent No.6 too was appointed as Lecturer MERC on regular temporary basis. The order of appointment dated 16.05.2002 was, however, subject to approval of the Syndicate of the University. The Syndicate in its meeting held on 06.12.2003 cleared the appointment of the petitioner and, accordingly, the University vide its order dated 03-04-2004 confirmed the services of the petitioner as Lecturer, MERC with effect from 17.06.2003. The respondent No.6, however, continued on regular temporary basis. In the year 2007, the University vide its advertisement notification No. F.10 (Apptt-Gen) RC/KU dated 20.07.2007 invited applications for making recruitment against various posts which included two posts of Lecturer (Migrant), MERC. The respondent No. 6, who was already in temporary employment of the University, made it to the selection against one of the two posts and was, accordingly, vide Order No. F10 (Apptt-Gen) RC/KU dated 08-12-2007 appointed as Lecturer purely on temporary basis against migrant vacancy in MERC. This appointment of the respondent No.6 was subject to ratification by the Syndicate and to the decision, if any, taken by the Syndicate with regard to filling up of the migrant vacancies. It seems that pursuant to the decision taken by the University to fill up the migrant vacancy on permanent basis in its meeting held on 21-09-2017, the temporary services of the respondent No.6 were confirmed and as a result the University vide its order dated 20-10-2017 confirmed the respondent No.6 as Assistant Professor ( earlier Lecturer), MERC with effect from 08-12-2008. Vide order impugned dated 19-05-2010, both the petitioner and respondent No.6 were placed in the senior scale of Assistant Professors in MERC with effect from 17-05-2008 and 17-05-2007 respectively. This is where respondent No.6 stole a march ahead of the petitioner. It is important to note that both the petitioner and respondent No.6 were given the benefit of senior scale of Assistant professor by a common order dated 19-05-2010, the order impugned in this petition. The impugned order dated 19-05-2010 was acted upon in letter and spirit. It was only in the year 2019, a representation came to be made by the petitioner against the placement of respondent No.6 ahead of the petitioner. Vide impugned communication dated 27-04-2019, the petitioner was informed that respondent No.6 was senior to the petitioner. By the later communication dated 08-01-2021 the petitioner was informed that the services put in by respondent No.6 as Assistant Professor on temporary basis too have been considered under Carrier Advancement Scheme ['CAS'] in the light of University Grants Commission Regulations. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and latches, acquiescence, and waiver can bar a petitioner from maintaining a writ petition. Additionally, the interpretation and applic....
Timely submission of academic qualifications and publications is essential for faculty promotions under UGC regulations; delays in challenges to university decisions can invalidate claims.
Promotion - There is no prayer in the petition challenging the seniority list. So, the issue of seniority cannot be gone into.
power of the Government to make laws determining the service conditions of its employees or amend such laws cannot confer them the power to apply such laws differently to similarly situated persons.
University must implement Screening Committee's promotion recommendation confirming API eligibility pursuant to judicial directions; denial thereafter is arbitrary. Notional promotion granted from el....
The main legal point established is the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing, in termination proceedings, and the applicability....
The main legal principle established is that UGC Regulations, 2010 have prospective effect and candidates who fulfill eligibility criteria before the enforcement of the regulations can be considered ....
It is in interest of University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to disputes in Uni....
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
