- (1.) The first writ petition of the year 2008 has been filed at the instance of one Amit Bansal seeking for issuance of a writ of quo warranto to quash the promotion of the 3rd respondent, Suresh Kumar Gupta, to the post of Professor by order dated 21.09.2006 as being contrary to the AICTE norms regarding the number of years of experience for being considered to a higher post. The writ petition of the 2009 is at the instance of 3rd respondent S.K. Gupta seeking to quash the enquiry conducted by the respondent-University and the show cause notice issued on 24.03.2009 and also the enquiry report given on 12.03.2009 as being without jurisdiction, illegal and beyond the powers vested with the University. The writ petition filed by the Professor, whose selection is subject of challenge in the writ petition of the year 2008 has impleaded only the University as party in his writ petition. The reference to the expression 'petitioner' for these two cases shall be to the petitioner in C.W.P No. 6267 of 2009 since the whole case revolves on the validity of his appointment and the challenge which he has mounted against the proceedings initiated against him questioning his right to office. At the time of institution of the writ petition, the petitioner has been working as a Professor in the Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak which is an unaided self-financing technical institute. By proceedings of the selection made for the post of Professor in Mathematics, the Selection Committee unanimously recommended the petitioner's name on the basis of his qualification and performance in the interview. The Selection Board consisted of two University representatives as well, who were the Head of the Department of the Mathematics and Head of the Department of Statistics from the University of Rohtak. The proceedings of the Selection Committee had been approved by the M.D. University on 03.04.2008 and at the time of grant of approval, the University had called for, inter alia, the copy of the joining report and also the verification report of all the qualifications from the Board/University concerned. The approval of the proceeding of the Selection Committee, which was issued by the University as late as in the year 2008 contained also reference to the fact that the approval for appointment would be conveyed after the receipt of the mentioned documents, complete in all respects. It would be, therefore, seen that the University was holding back its approval for the post till the verification of all the qualification requirements. It was during the officiation of the petitioner as a Professor of the College that the writ petition of the year 2008 came to be filed at the instance of an employee of the college contending that the appointment of the petitioner was against the AICTE norms. The employee would refer to the fact that as per the AICTE norms, the qualification and experience for the post of Professor is 5 years experience as Assistant Professor and/or equivalent. According to the person, who has raised an objection to the petitioner's appointment, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor only on 25.07.2004 and therefore, as on 17.09.2006 at the time when his case was taken up by the Selection Committee for appointment as a Professor, he had not the requisite number of years of experience as Assistant Professor.
(2.) When this writ petition was filed, the University appears to have made its own enquiries and marked them confidential in the records. The report, which was prepared by the University had the reference of the documents collected by the employee of the college under RTI and they made specific reference to the fact that the petitioner had been appointed in Vaish College of Engineering, Rohtak since 1995 as a Lecturer and the casual leave application from the year 1995 to 2006 had been deliberately destroyed by the petitioner himself vide his order dated 28.01.2008 only to conceal the fact that he had continued as a Lecturer till the year 2004 when he was appointed as an Assistant Professor. The attempt of the college to bolster the case of the petitioner that he had been appointed as an Assistant Professor even on 01.01.2001 was deliberately done only to create a document for experience qualification, which he lacked. The discreet enquiry report collected by the University made also reference to the fact that the college had not granted any proof for payment of salary as Assistant Professor from 01.01.2001 itself but the college had merely fabricated a document to show that the Selection Committee had held its proceedings on 01.01.2001 affording to the petitioner the post of Assistant Professor with no corresponding documents of payment of salary attached to the post. As a matter of fact that the Chairman of the College had himself disowned two of the letters alleged to have been sent on 24.05.2007 and 05.07.2007 showing the petitioner as an Assistant Professor from 01.01.2001.
(3.) An regards the attempt of the petitioner to make it appear as though that he held the post of Assistant Professor from 01.01.2001, I would reject as false and artificial and I would not detain myself at length on this aspect, for there are several factors that show that the petitioner could not have officiated as an Assistant Professor from 2001. Even apart from the absence of leave applications and the salary registers relating to the said period, even the members of the Selection Committee including the persons who were nominees from the University would plead selective amnesia to show that they did not remember whether the petitioner had the requisite number of years of experience and whether they had seen any document showing that the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Professor from the year 2001 itself. Indeed such a contention would be impermissible for the college to make, especially in view of the fact that when the Selection Committee was proposing the name of the petitioner only on 25.07.2004 to the University seeking for its approval. They were not making a reference about any anterior de facto officiation of the petitioner as an Assistant Professor at that time. I would, therefore, find as correct the enquiry report made by the University that the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Professor only in 2004 and on the day when the Selection Committee was proposing his name as a Professor on 17.09.2006, the petitioner had not the requisite experience as per the AICTE norms.;