- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 4-3-2003 (Annexure 15), by which the respondent No. 4 had been appointed Dean, Faculty of Unani Medicine for a period of two years with effect from 5-3-2003 vice Professor Afzal Ahmad.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner is a Professor in the regular cadre in the Department of Unani Medicine and had been Dean of the Faculty from 8-7-1993 to 7-7- 1995. Petitioner was again appointed as Dean, Faculty of Unani Medicine with effect from 8-7-1997 by rotation. However disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and suspension order has been passed, he could not function as a Dean. Inquiry stood concluded and he was exonerated vide order dated 6-2-2002. The post of Dean became vacant on 4th March, 2003 and the respondent No. 4 had been appointed on the said post. Hence the present petition. Heard Shri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dilip Gupta for the University and Smt. Sunita Agrawal for respondent No. 4, and also perused the record. Shri M. D. Singh Shekhar has submitted that though the petitioner had been appointed as a Dean in 1997 but because of the suspension, he could not function as a Dean. On 4th March, 2003, he was the senior-most Professor in the Department and respondent No. 4 had been promoted on probation and appointed as a Dean on mala fides, which is not permissible in law. More so, petitioner had met a hostile discrimination as of similar circumstances, where for one reason or the other, the duly appointed Dean could not complete his tenure, he was given further time to work as a Dean. The petitioner remained under suspension for more than a year and he could not function as a Dean, he could ought to have been given that much time. He had legitimate expectation for extension of time as in other case it was done, and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the contrary, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that Dean is to be appointed by rotation in pursuance of the Statute No. 7. 1, which provides that the Dean of a Faculty shall be appointed by the Executive Counsel from amongst the Professors in the faculty by rotation according to seniority for a period of two years. The Professors, as referred to in Clause (1) of Statute 7, includes the Professors appointed in the regular cadre as well as promoted under Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme. The petitioner had earlier worked as a Dean from 1993 to 1995. A legal controversy as to whether the Professors promoted under Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme could be appointed as a Dean and the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17731 of 1996 vide judgment and order dated 4-4-1997 in Ms. Shireen Moosvi v. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Ors. , has held that Professors other than appointed in regular cadre are not entitled to be appointed as Dean. It is because of this controversy as by virtue of the judgment and order of this Court, the Professors promoted under Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme became out of Zone of consideration. The petitioner had been again appointed as a Dean vide order dated 7-7-1997. He could not function as a Dean because of his suspension, and the judgment of this Court, above referred to, was reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. A. Siddiqui v. Professor M. Wajid Khan and Ors. , JT 1999 (1) SC 1, and it was held that a combined seniority list of Professors, irrespective of the feeding cadre, whether they had been selected in a regular cadre or under Personal Promotion Scheme or Career Advancement Scheme, be prepared. Hence, as the petitioner had earlier been appointed in 1997 in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court and when the post of Dean became vacant on 4th March, 2003, respondent No. 4 had also been appointed as a Professor and was being in the queue, she had rightly been appointed as a Dean and the petition is de void of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Undoubtedly, provisions of Clause (1) of Statute 7 provide that any appointment of a Dean from amongst the Professors in the Faculty by rotation according to the seniority will be for a period of two years. Petitioner had worked as a Dean from 1993 to 1995. By rotation, he could not have been appointed in 1997 had the judgment of this Court passed in Ms. Moosi (supra) been not in operation. Had the Professors promoted in other categories been considered, the petitioner could not have been offered the post of Dean in the said Department. When the post of Dean became vacant on 4th March, 2003, the respondent No. 4 was a duly appointed Dean in the Department and stood in the queue for being appointed as a Dean in a cyclic order of seniority. Thus, we do not find any fault with her appointment as a Dean.;