DR. K.P. PANDEY Vs. THE HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises out of certain matters concerning the Himachal Pradesh University. The Petitioner, Dr. K.P. Pandey, held the office of Head of the Department of Education, was Dean of the Faculty of Education, and therefore, member of the Executive Council. On January 5, 1976, the Registrar of the University issued three notifications. By the first notification (Annexure 'E') it was declared that the Vice -Chancellor, acting under Statute 13(1)(v)(v) read with Ordinance 23.2 of the First Ordinances of the University had appointed Professor V.S. Mathur (Respondent No. 4) as Head of the Department of Education with immediate effect in place of the Petitioner. By the second notification (Annexure 'E1') it was declared that Professor Mathur, as Head of the Department of Education, would hold the office of Dean, Faculty of Education in place of the Petitioner. By the third notification (Annexure E2) Professor Mathur was declared member of the Executive Council in place of the Petitioner in accordance with Statute 10(1)(ii) of the First Statutes. On January 6, 1976, the Registrar issued a notification (Annexure 'K') intimating the appointment by the Vice -Chancellor of an Enquiry Committee to enquire into certain aspects pertaining to the publication and sale of a book titled "Programmed Learning", On February 9, 1976, the Registrar sent a letter (Annexure 'L') informing the Enquiry Committee of the terms of reference and the scope of enquiry (Annexure L1). By this writ petition the Petitioner prays for the quashing of Annexures E, E1, E2, K, 1 and 11.

(2.) The writ petition has been brought on the following averments. In September, 1971 the Petitioner was appointed to the post of Director of Correspondence Courses -cam -Professor of Education in the Himachal Pradesh University, and he joined the post on October 7, 1971. He has been holding the post since then. He was confirmed in the appointment by an order dated February 19, 1974, with effect from October 7, 1972. On March 30, 1972, he was appointed Dean of the Faculty of Education pursuant to Statute 3(1) of the First Statutes, which office he held for a period of two years. The Petitioner contends that the appointment was made on the footing that he was a Professor of Education. As Dean, the Petitioner became a member of the Executive Council. Subsequently, the Petitioner says, Professor H.C. Sinha was appointed as another Professor in the Department of Education. When the Petitioner 's term as Dean was coming to a close on March 29, 1974, it was proposed that Professor Sinha should succeed him as Head of the Department and as Dean of the Faculty, but on Dr. Sinha declining it was notified on April 24, 1974, that the Petitioner had again been appointed Head and thereby Dean and would, therefore, continue as member of the Executive Council with effect from March 30, 1974. The Petitioner urges that he was entitled to continue as such until March 29, 1976. But on January 5, 1976, the notifications mentioned above were issued divesting the Petitioner of the offices of Head of the Department, Dean of the Faculty and member of the Executive Council and appointing instead Professor V.S. Mathur. The case of the Petitioner is that his term of office extended upto March 29, 1976, and it could not be terminated before that date. The Petitioner addressed a representation to the Vice -Chancellor on January 6, 1976, but apparently with no success. On the contrary, he was informed on February 26, 1976, by the Registrar that the action taken was valid and in accordance with the Statutes of the University. That is one part of this writ petition.

(3.) The second part of the writ petition concerns the validity of an enquiry commenced by the Vice -Chancellor, Dr. B.S. Jogi, into the publication and sale of a book "Programmed Learning", of which the Petitioner is the author. The Petitioner alleges that the Vice -Chancellor had no power to institute the enquiry and, therefore, the constitution of the Enquiry Committee, the definition of its terms of reference and scope of enquiry, and the proceedings taken by it are invalid. The validity of the enquiry is also challenged on the ground that it has been motivated by malafides on the part of the Vice -Chancellor.