R.N.SEHGAL Vs. DR.Y.S.PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
DR.Y.S.PARMAR UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Click here to view full judgement.
DEVINDER GUPTA,J. -
(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has praved for quashing of order passed on September 3, 1990 by the Registrar of respondent -University, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure P -2 Toe order has the effect of cancelling his appointment as Head of Department of Forest Biology and Tree Improvement in the College of Forestry, Solan, by appointing respondent No. 2 as Head of Department.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he being the senior -most scientist equivalent to the rank of Associate Professor in the Department of Forest Biology and Tree Improvement in respondent -University was appointed as Head of such Department vide an order passed by respondent No. 1 on March 31, 1989, Annexure P -I and in pursuance thereto he assumed the charge as such and had been discharging his duties to the best of his capability and entire satisfaction of his superiors. There was no complaint against him in the discharge of his official functions and he was never communicated any adverse remarks/reports while working as Head of Department. The grievance of the petitioner is that abruptly without any rhyme or reason and without affording him any opportunity of being heard and contrary to the provision of law, rules and regulations respondent No. 1 on September 3, 1990, passed Annexure P -2 order in supersession of the earlier order Annexure P -I and appointed respondent No. 2 as Head of Department This action of the respondent -University has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition by urging that provisions of Statute 14. of the University have been given a go -bye and the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience. Respondent No. 2, who is junior to the petitioner as Scientist/Associate Professor, was not entitled to be posted as Head of Department when a senior was already positioned as such.
(3.) Respondents were called upon to file their reply. Respondent No. 1 filed its reply on the affidavit of Registrar while respondent No. 2 filed the same on his own affidavit. Respondents have justified the action of respondent No. 1 in appointing respondent No. 2 as Head of Department in their respective replies.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.