B.Dikshit, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order of Vice-Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (in short 'Vice'-Chancellor') whereby while ordering petitioner's re-employment with effect from 5th September, 1998 till 30th June, 1999 by an order dated 28th June, 1998 under Statute 14.24 (3) of First Statutes of Uttar Pradesh Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (in short 'Statute'), on the day following the petitioner's attaining age of superannuation, the Vice-Chancellor directed that petitioner shall neither be member of the Faculty nor Head of the Department nor he will hold these offices during re-employment. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as he was Head of the Education Department on the date he attained the age of superannuation at the time of retirement but on re-employment, the Vice-Chancellor appointed Dr. Sarla Pandey. Reader in the Department of Education of Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi (in short 'Kashi Vidyapith') in exercise of power under Section 27 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act (in short 'Act') read with Statute 2.19 as Head of the Department in place of petitioner with effect from 5th September, 1998.
(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to present controversy, are that petitioner Joined Kashi Vidyapith on 30.1.1988 on a clear permanent vacancy as Professor following an offer of appointment. Soon after joining, petitioner was notified as Head of the Department and Dean of Faculty of Education under Section 27 of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was also notified as senior most Professor on 28.3.1998. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 4th September. 1998 but as the date of superannuation did not fall on June 30. in view of proviso to Statute 14.24 (3), the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till the end of academic session, ie., till June 30, 1999. So far status of petitioner is concerned, he is to be treated as re-employed teacher from the date immediately following the date on which he attained the age of superannuation. Although there is no dispute between the parties on facts, the dispute has arisen as the petitioner is sole Professor in Education Department and, therefore, he claimed that he has to be continued as Head of the Department of Education and. therefore, Dr. Sarla Pandey, a Reader could not be appointed as Head of the Department. Being dis-satisfied, as Vice-Chancellor appointed Dr. Sarla Pandey as Head of the Department, the petitioner moved Chancellor Kashi Vidyapith under Section 68 of the Act. The Chancellor rejected petitioner's claim. Feeling aggrieved by order of Chancellor, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor and for Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in petitioner's functioning as Head of the Department and Dean Faculty of Education at Kashi Vidyapith. As counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavits stand exchanged and counsel for the parties agreed that the writ petition can be finally disposed of at this stage of admission, we proceeded to hear the writ petition on merit, which is being disposed of finally in accordance with rules of the Court.
(3.) The argument of leaned counsel for petitioner has been that petitioner is sole Professor at Education Department, therefore, under the Statutes, he is entitled to hold the post of Head of the Department even after attaining the age of superannuation till the end of academic session, i.e., 30th June. 1999 and Dr. Sarla Pandey, who happens to be only a Reader in the Education Department, could not be appointed as Head of the Department till he is there. The argument was opposed by learned counsel for Kashi Vidyapith as well as by the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Sarla Pandey, who claimed that after attaining age of superannuation, on re-employment, the petitioner is not entitled to hold the post of Head of the Department and, therefore, Dr. Sarla Pandey had rightly been appointed as Head of the Department. As all the counsel for parties relied on Statutes of Kashi Vidyapith. reference to relevant Statutes is necessary for resolving the controversy. The relevant Statutes are 2.19, 14.24, 14.26 and 15.05 (a). They are as under : "2.19. The senior most teacher in each department of teaching in the University shall be Head of that Department." **** "14. 24. (1) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University governed by the new scale of pay shall be sixty years. (2) The age of superannuation of a teacher of the University not governed by the new scale of pay shall be Sixty years. (3) No extension in service beyond the age of superannuation shall be granted to any teacher after the date of commencement of these Statutes : Provided that if the date of superannuation of a teacher does not fall on June 30, the teacher shall continue in service till the end of the academic session, i.e., June 30 following and he will be treated as on re-employment from the date immediately following the date of his superannuation till June 30 following." **** "14.26. The date of retirement of a teacher of the University shall be the date immediately preceding the 60th Birthday of such teacher." **** "15.05. The following rules shall be followed in determining the seniority of teachers of the University : (a) A Professor shall be deemed senior to every Reader, and a Reader shall be deemed senior to every Lecturer.";