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

2024 Supreme(UK) 324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, PANKAJ PUROHIT, JJ.
Dr. Raj Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) Nos. 327, 317, 324, 325, 326, 328, 329, 330, 340, 347, 371, 480, 531 of 2023
Decided On : 15-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Mr. A.S. Rawat, Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocates assisted by Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, Mr. R.S. Rawat, Mr. C.S. Dalakoti, Mr. Narayan Har Gupta, Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Mr. T.C. Pandey and Mr. A.K. Tripathi, Counsel.
For the State of Uttarakhand :Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.
For the G.B. Pant University : Mr. S.S. Lingwal.
For the ICAR : Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht.
For the UGC : Ms. Anjali Bhargava.

IMPORTANT POINT
The definition of 'Teacher' under the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958, encompasses roles involved in research and extension, qualifying the petitioner for retirement benefits.

Headnote:

Teacher - Writ Petition - U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958 - The court interpreted the definition of 'Teacher' under Section 2(k) and the implications of the Statute regarding appointment and superannuation, concluding that the petitioner qualifies as a Teacher entitled to benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash orders removing him from his position as Professor and HOD, claiming he was a Teacher entitled to increased retirement age benefits under a government order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher under the relevant statute and that the withdrawal of his retirement benefits was done without due process.

Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as a 'Teacher' under the U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958, to receive the benefits of increased retirement age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the source of funding does not affect the status of the petitioner as a Teacher, as his duties and responsibilities align with the definition provided in the statute.

Result: The writ petitions were decided in favor of the petitioners, affirming their status as Teachers.

JUDGMENT :

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 327 of 2023 alone are being considered and discussed. Petitioner Dr. Raj Kumar Singh has sought the following reliefs :

    “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, summoning the records from G.B. Pant University, Pantnagar, and quashing the impugned orders 04.07.2023 and 12.07.2023, issued by respondent nos. 1 & 2, contained in Annexure-1 & 2 to this petition.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 6 not to remove the petitioner from the post of Professor and HOD, department of Agrometeorology pursuant to the impugned orders contained in Annexure-1 & 2 to this petition.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 6 not to deprive the petitioner of any service benefits pursuant to the impugned orders, contained in Annexure-1 & 2 to this petition.”

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Research Officer (Agronomy) vide order dated 20.11.1992 in the Department of Agrometeorology in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Patnagar (for short, ‘University’). The said appointment was made after selection, which was held pursuant to an employment notice no. 1 of 1991. In the said advertisement, the post of Junior Research Officer has been shown as equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor and both these posts were placed in the same pay scale i.e. Rs.2200-4000. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was appointed with the approval of Board of Management of the University. Learned Counsel for the University concedes that petitioner was selected by a Selection Committee constituted as per Clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the Statute of the University, which is extracted below :

    “4(d) The Selection Committee for the appointment of a Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor or teacher shall consist of;

(i) The Kulpati who shall be the Chairman thereof;

(ii) The Dean of the Faculty concerned;

(iii) One Head of the Department to be nominated by the Kulpati;

(iv) Two experts to be nominated by the Kuladhipati;

** Provided that if the Kulpati (Vice-Chancellor) is, for any reason, not available to participate in any meeting of the Selection Committee constituted under clause (d), then in the case of Assoc. Professors, Assitt. Professors and equivalent posts, he may, by general or special orders, require the Prati-Kulpati (Pro-Vice-Chancellor) or the Dean of the Faculty concerned to preside over the Selection Committee and perform functions of the Chairman.”

3. It is not in dispute that a person can be appointed to a teaching post in the University only after selection by the Selection Committee constituted under Clause 4(d) of Chapter XIII of the Statute. Since petitioner was appointed after selection in terms of Clause 4(d), therefore, it can be safely inferred that the University recognized the post in question as a teaching post.

4. According to the petitioner, as Junior Research Officer, his primary duty is to conduct and guide research, which, according to petitioner, brings him within the ambit of the expression ‘Teacher’, as defined in Section 2(k) of U.P. Krishi Evam Prodyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1958. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the University, which is petitioner’s employer, admits that petitioner is not only guiding and conducting research but is also engaged in extension programmes, which is one of the objects of the University as per Section 4(c) of the Act.

5. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that petitioner was promoted as Senior Research Officer in the Department of Agrometeorology in the pay scale of Rs.12,000-18,300 vide order dated 1

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