Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE petitioners had filed the present petition impugning the order dated 6.9.2011 constituting the Senate of National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (for short, 'the Institute') and office orders dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P -1) and 13.4.2010 (Annexure P -3) shifting the students of Ph.D. from parent departments to other departments. Though initially the petition was filed by two teachers working in the Institute, who were members of the Senate, however, it was not pressed on behalf of petitioner No. 2 as he was dismissed from service and the order of dismissal was upheld by this court in C.W.P. No. 20462 of 2012, decided on 30.11.2012.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submitted that vide orders dated 7.8.2007 and 13.4.2010 (Annexures P -1 and P -3), the departments of certain students, who were enrolled for their Ph.D. course were changed merely with the approval of Dean of the Institute. There are different eligibility conditions for enrollment for Ph.D. courses in different departments and the written test is also different. The students enrolled for Ph.D. in one department cannot possibly be transferred to another department. Some of the students were not even eligible for admissible in Ph.D. course in the transferee department considering their basic qualifications. Petitioner No. 1 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information pertaining to the policy for transfer of students in Ph.D. course. In response thereto, vide communication dated 3.1.2011, the Institute clarified that there is no policy as such regarding transfer of Ph.D. students from one department to another. A Committee has been constituted by the Director to suggest the guide -lines, which once submitted will be put up before the Senate for approval. Petitioner No. 1 had even written a letter to the Director of the Institute pointing out to him the violation pertaining to transfer of Ph.D. students from one department to another. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in terms of clause 3.2.3(b) of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Statutes (for short, 'the Statutes'), 20% members of a Senate can request for calling of special meeting. A request to that effect was made to the Chairman of the Senate on 9.2.2011 signed by three members, but the same was not acceded to. Even the reminders dated 28.2.2011 and 3.3.2011 were also not acted upon. A communication was sent to the Visitor of the Institute, namely, His Excellency the President of India on 22.3.2011 pointing out the irregularities. It is only thereafter that vide letter dated 29.3.2011, petitioner No. 1 was asked to submit certain papers, though details had already been furnished. The meeting of the Senate was called on 4.5.2011, which was merely a regular meeting and not special, as was requested to be summoned. The item, which was requested to be put up by petitioner No. 1, was not there.
(3.) WITH reference to challenge to the constitution of the Senate vide order dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P -14), learned counsel for petitioner No. 1, while referring to Section 13 of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Act, 1998 (for short, 'the Act') and clause 3.2.1 of the Statutes, submitted that Senate has to be constituted strictly in terms thereof. If the constitution of the Senate is considered in the light of aforesaid provisions, the same deserves to be set aside. The violation is in terms of the nominations to be made as per Section 13(d) and (e) of the Act. The prayer is for setting aside of the order constituting the Senate and till such time a new Senate is constituted, the existing one should be ordered to be continued.;