(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that she be appointed as the Head of the Department of Geography in the first respondent - University, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
(2.) The petitioner asserts that she is fully qualified to be appointed as the Head of the Department (HOD) but that the University is denying her the said opportunity without assigning any particular reason. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the University be directed to consider her for being appointed as the Head of the Department at the earliest.
(3.) However, in response to the submissions of the petitioner as voiced by her learned counsel, Sri.A.Jayasankar, the learned standing counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner has been alleged to have committed plagiarism and Ext.R1(c) report has been obtained by the Vice Chancellor from the Academic Plagiarism Committee of the University. He submitted that as long as the petitioner continues to be under that allegation and until her name is fully cleared, she cannot be considered for the post of Head of the Department, since it involves great responsibilities and duties. The learned standing counsel, therefore, submitted that unless the proceedings against the petitioner are completed with respect to the allegations of plagiarism, the University is incapacitated from considering her for being appointed as the Head of the Department.