VALMIKI J.MEHTA,J - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Professor Ishtiyaque Ahmad seeking three reliefs. First is challenge to the order dated 4.2.2013, and which order upheld the action of the Vice-Chancellor in removing the petitioner from the post of Head of Department of Islamic Studies and Social Sciences. The second relief claimed in the writ petition is challenge to the show-cause notice dated 25.2.2013 initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The third relief is really a consequential relief on the petitioner being continued in the post of Head of Department, however I note WP(C) No.1815/2013 Page 1 of 9 that no cause of action is laid out as to how the petitioner can be appointed as a Dean of Faculty of Islamic Studies and Social Sciences and how the requirements or qualifications are met by the petitioner.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner, a professor of the respondent No.1/University namely Jamia Hamdard University, was appointed as a Head of Department of Faculty of Islamic Studies and Social Sciences vide order dated 22.11.2010 which specified the period of his appointment as three years upto 31.10.2013 or till further orders, whichever is earlier. The petitioner was removed from the post of Head of Department of Islamic Studies and Social Sciences vide order dated 16.11.2012 whereby another person Sh.G.Y.Anjum was appointed as the HoD. Be it noted that the petitioner continued to be of the rank of the Professor in the respondent No.1/University. Petitioner earlier filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 16.11.2012, and which WP(C) No.7596/2012 was disposed of by treating the writ petition as an appeal in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent No.1. The appropriate authority of the respondent No.1 has thereafter passed the impugned order dated 4.2.2013 confirming the removal of the petitioner from the post of HoD. The respondent No. 1 has also issued a show-cause notice dated 25.2.2013 against the petitioner and which is accompanied by the detailed articles of charges. There are as many as five articles of charges with respect to the petitioner being guilty of negligence, misconduct and doing acts unbecoming for an employee of the respondent No.1/University. I need not refer to in detail the articles of charges which are contained at pages 55 to 57 of the paper book. On behalf of the petitioner great emphasis is placed upon the fact that the impugned order dated 4.2.2013 is illegal because when the petitioner was appointed as Head of Department, there was no provision in the Rules of the respondent No.1/University that a person could be appointed as a Head of Department for a particular number of years or till further orders. Stress is laid out on the aspect that there is no provision in the Rules for an appointment to be "till further orders".
(3.) IT is argued so far as the chargesheet dated 25.2.2013 is concerned that the said chargesheet is malafide and issued at the instance of the Vice-Chancellor who was instrumental in removing the petitioner from the post of HoD.;