Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.
K. Suneetha Rani – Appellant
Versus
The University of Hyderabad and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 13108 of 2020
Decided On : 22-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B. Mohana Reddy, Adv.
For the Respondent: V. Krishna Mohan and B. Nalin Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict adherence to the provisions of Statute 7(1) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974, regarding the appointment of the Head of the Department, and the consequences of failing to follow the prescribed procedure for appointment.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Appointment of Head of Department - University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 - Statute 7(1), Clause 4(1) of Chapter 4 of the Academic Ordinance - [APPOINTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD] - [Statute 7(1), Clause 4(1) of Chapter 4 of the Academic Ordinance] - The court discussed the provisions of Statute 7(1) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974, which mandates the appointment of a Professor as the Head of the Department, and Clause 4(1) of Chapter 4 of the Academic Ordinance. The court interpreted the provisions to emphasize the requirement for a Professor to be appointed as the Head of the Department and the conditions under which an Associate Professor can be appointed. The court's decision was influenced by the clear language of Statute 7(1) and the failure to follow the prescribed procedure for appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to declare the appointment of the 4th respondent as Head of the Department, Centre for Women's Studies, University of Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary, citing violation of Statute 7(1) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 and Clause 4(1) of the Chapter 4 of the Academic Ordinance. The petitioner contended that she was senior most and fully eligible for the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of the 4th respondent as Head of the Department was contrary to Statute 7(1) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974. The court emphasized that the appointment should have been in accordance with the provisions, and the failure to appoint a Professor as mandated by the statute was a violation.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the appointment of the 4th respondent as Head of the Department, the interpretation of Statute 7(1) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974, and the compliance with the prescribed procedure for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the clear language of Statute 7(1) and the failure to follow the prescribed procedure for appointment. The court emphasized the requirement for a Professor to be appointed as the Head of the Department and the conditions under which an Associate Professor can be appointed.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appointment of the 4th respondent as Head of the Department and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of the Head of the Department.
ORDER :
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the appointment of the 4th respondent, an Associate Professor, on probation, to the post of Head of the Department, Centre for Women's Studies, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dt. 30-06-2020 with effect from 01-07-2020 and the same is being approved on 27-07-2020 by the 3rd respondent in the appeal made by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the Statue 7(1) of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 (for brevity 'the Act, 1974') and Clause 4(1) of the Chapter 4 of the Academic Ordinance under the University of Hyderabad Act and consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as the Head of the Centre for Women's Studies, University of Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, as the petitioner alone fulfils all the criteria for the appointment as per the above mentioned Act and Ordinance.
2. Heard Smt. B. Mohana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Krishna Mohan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for 4th respondent.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that she is senior most professor working in Centre for Women's Studies, University of Hyderabad and she is fully eligible and qualified to be posted as Head of the Department.
4. As per Statute 7(1), which deals with 'Heads of Departments/Centres', each department/Centre shall have a Head who shall be a Professor and whose duties and functions and terms and conditions of appointment shall be prescribed by the Ordinances; Provided that if there is one or more than one Professor in any Department/Centre, the Head of the Department/Centre shall be appointed in the manner prescribed by the Ordinances; Provided further that in a Department/Centre where there is no Professor, Associate Professor shall be appointed as Head of the Department/Centre in the manner prescribed by the ordinances; and Provided also that if there is no Professor or Associate Professor, in a Department/Centre, the Dean of the School concerned shall act as the Head of that Department/Centre.
5. The petitioner has contended that the 2nd respondent, contrary to the Statute 7(1), has appointed the 4th respondent as Head of the Department vide proceedings dt. 30-06-2020 for a period of three years with effect from 01-07-2020. He has further contended that the 4th respondent is not even a Professor and she is far junior to the petitioner and the 4th respondent was appointed as Associate Professor on 05-03-2020 and her probation is also not declared.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when senior most Professor is available, the respondents cannot ignore the case of the petitioner and appoint the 4th respondent as Head of the Department contrary to the Statute 17(1) of the Statutes of the University.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has confirmed the appointment of the 4th respondent mechanically vide proceedings dt. 27-07-2020. The petitioner has contended that the Statutes and Ordinances are framed under Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Act, 1974, and as per Statute 7(1) and the Ordinance 4(1) of the Act, 1974, the Head of the Department or Head of the Centre shall be a Professor from the Department. If only the Professor declines to be the Head of the Department, then, the Associate Professor or Dean of Faculty shall act as Head of the Department. The petitioner has further contended that she was Head of the Department during the year 2013 for a period of two years and the Centre for Women Studies became a Statutory Centre vide 159th meeting of the Executive Council held on 27-11-2013 and the Executive Council has approved the recommendations made by the Academic Counsel Meeting vide Minutes of the 71st meeting on 19-09-2013. Thereafter, the Academic Ordinances were am
