Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) Petitioner is an Associate Professor in the department of Political Science at Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). She has approached this Court with the grievance that University has acted arbitrarily in denying her a fair treatment while considering her claim for promotion to the post of Professor under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'CAS'). It is alleged that proceedings of selection have been interpolated and she has been selectively discriminated.
(2.) The writ petition, as was originally instituted, sought following reliefs:- "a. To issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned selection proceedings dated 10.2.2017 and also quashed the approval of selection dated 15.3.2017 as done by the Vice Chancellor of the University in favour of Respondent No. 6 (Annexure - 3 and 6 to the writ petition) respectively in reference to post of Professor, Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. b. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent University authorities particularly, the Vice Chancellor of the University to take a final decision in the matter in reference to representation of the petitioner dated 19.5.2018 relying upon finding recorded by the fact finding committee report dated 23.4.2018, particularly para -3 in favour of petitioner. The decision may be taken within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. c. To, issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent university authorities particularly Vice Chancellor of the University to decide another representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2017 against the incorrect valuation of API score of Respondent No. 6 and also in reference to certificate of vocational training. The certificate of guided research and marks given in referent to M.Phil to Respondent No. 6 which was beyond the date of eligibility. The respondent authority may decide the issue and reduced the 20 marks given illegally to respondent no. 6, resulting that Respondent No. 6 not even eligible to be appointed as Professor. The representation of the petitioner may be decided within the stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. d. To, issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. e. To award the cost of this petition of the petitioner. f. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned order dated 7.12.2018 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University and communicated by the Registrar of the University (Annexure -1 to the affidavit)."
(3.) At the stage of initial hearing in the writ petition, following orders were passed on 28.11.2018:- "Petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that she is being harassed and victimised in the matter relating to grant of benefit under the Career Advancement Scheme for promotion to the post of Professor. It appears that the Committee constituted to examine the issue considered petitioner?s claim also. The minutes of the meeting is annexed at page-63 of the Writ Petition, which clearly contains a cutting in the award of marks to the petitioner. It is highlighted that on account of cutting the marks of petitioner have been reduced from 65 to 49, so as to deny her claim. The cutting in award of marks is also not signed by all members. Upon a complaint made by the petitioner a committee was constituted to look into her complaint, which too found substance in the petitioner's grievance. However, the Vice-Chancellor of the University is yet to take a decision in the matter. When the matter is taken up today, Sri S.S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the University has placed a letter received from the Ministry of Human Resources Development dated 19.6.2018, which reads as under:- "Sir, I am directed to refer to this Ministry's letter of even number dated 01.05.2018 and reminder dated 29.05.2018 (copy enclosed) seeking a copy of the report of the Fact Finding Committee constituted by the VC, AMU on 25.10.2017 to look into the complaints cited in the above subject. 2. The report of the aforementioned Committee alongwith comments of the University thereon is still awaited from the University. 3. I am to again request that the requisite information maybe provided to the Ministry immediately". A reply has also been sent by the Registrar of the University on 28.7.2018, which reads as under:- "This has reference to your letter dated 19.6.2018 and clarification dated 23.6.2018 submitted by the aforementioned fact finding committee is being sent herewith for your perusal". On behalf of the University it is submitted that because the matter is pending before the Central Government as such the University has not been able to take a final decision upon petitioner's complaint. The defence set up by the University is not liable to be accepted inasmuch as the letter of the Central Government only directs the University to look into the grievance of the petitioner and the communication cannot be construed as putting any fetters on the power of the University to redress the wrong which appears to have been caused to her. The University has merely sent a clarification to the Ministry and the records remain available with it to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Let this matter appear, once again, as fresh on 10.12.2018. Learned counsel for the University may obtain instructions in the matter and the decision of the Vice-Chancellor in the matter relating to petitioner's grievance shall be placed before this Court by the next date fixed.";