Decided on December 21,2001

D.V. Singh Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


ASHOK A.DESAI, P C.VERMA, J. - (1.)HEARD Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. D. Agarwala, Additional Solicitor General. The petitioner Dr. D. V Singh, hold­ing the post of Director of Indian Insti­tute of Technology, has filed the instant petition to challenge clause 5-A (e) of the Ordinance. According to him, this clause as argued by Mr. Jain creates a hostile discrimination amongst the employees engaged by the then Roorkee University. The Roorkee University by the im­pugned Ordinance has been converted into Indian Institute of Technology. Un­der Clause 5-A (e), the petitioner has availed the deemed provisions and con­tinued as Director of the newly converted I.I.T.Having availed the benefit of the Or­dinance, the petitioner cannot success­fully challenge the virus of clause (e) re­ferred to above.
(2.)EVEN otherwise on merits, Mr. Jain contended before us that Vice-Chancel­lor is like any other employee as referred to in clause (d) and, therefore, without there being any basis clause (e) had car­ried a discrimination, which is inadmis­sible in view of the Article 14 of the Con­stitution of India. On going through the nature of the office and functions of the Vice-Chancellor, the submission is totally untenable as the Vice-Chancellor cannot be equated to be and at par with other employees of the University. Even oth­erwise the Vice-Chancellor, according to the nature and function of his office, is an authority of the University. He is also entrusted with the power to take deci­sion. Therefore, he cannot in strict sense be a person employed as envisaged in clause (d). Moreover, the process of se­lection of Vice-Chancellor is altogether different than recruitment of the employ­ees as envisaged in clause (d).
Mr. Jain has placed reliance on a decision of Dinnapati Sadasiva Reddi v. Chancellor, Osmania University and others AIR 1967 SC 1305. We have carefully examined the such judgment. We are of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not attracted for its application in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(3.)IN view of this, there is sufficient basis and logic to differentiate other em­ployees from the Vice-Chancellor. The submission is, therefore, untenable.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.