High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ashish Chandra v. Chancellor, Bundelkhan Univeristy, Lucknow And Othres - WRIT - A No. 8515 of 2006  RD-AH 858 (13 January 2006)
Court No. 29
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8515 of 2006
Ashish Chandra ...................... ........Petitioner.
The Chancellor, Bundelkhand University
and others ......... Respondents.
Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.
Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
1. The facts of the case need not be enumerated here as can be seen from the impugned termination order ( Annexure - 18 ) itself which has been passed on 21.12.2003 by respondent no. 3, the Registrar of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and which the petitioner has assailed by bringing this writ petition. The facts of the case unravel a very strange and distressing picture of nepotism a nexus between the then Vice Chancellor of Bundelkhand University and the petitioner, both uncle and nephew respectively.
2. We have heard Mrs. Neela Gokhle, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri Prakash Padia ,learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 3.
3. This is how the chain of events moved.
(i) In March, 2002 the petitioner was a regular student of a Degree course ''Master of International Business Management' in the Bundelkhand University itself, when the post of Data Entry Operator laid vacant and advertised. The petitioner applied and was selected. He was given appointment on 27.3.2002.
(ii) To facilitate the petitioner, who was a regular student of Master of International Business Management, the Vice-Chancellor accorded him the permission on April 15,2002 (Annexure - 3) fixing his official duty of his new assignment Data Operator from 4.00 P.M. to 12.00 mid-night on every day. This order of the Vice-Chancellor in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner has turned to be a forged document prepared subsequently to shield himself ( petitioner) from the termination, as will appear from the enquiry report and impugned termination order ( Annexure- 18) dated 2.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 3, Registrar of the University.
(iii) Soon after the petitioner passed M.I.B.M. there was an advertisement for the post of Lecturer in the Institute of Tourism of the said University. The petitioner was appointed on the said post vide appointment order dated 20.6.2003, on recommendation ( Annexure - 8 ) dated 19.6.2003 of the Selection Committee which noted of his specialization in marketing, while the facts themselves reveal that, he was an immediate freshener who had passed his M.I.B.M. Degree hardly a one or two months ago, and did not at all possess the requisite qualification for his appointment prescribed in the guide-lines of U.G.C. as discovered from the impugned order itself.
(iv) Hardly one and a half year had elapsed of his being a Lecturer, the petitioner was given the next ladder, appointment (Annexure - 14 ) on the post of Reader, in the aforesaid department on January 11, 2005. The Selection Committee even relaxed the requirement of minimum teaching experience, to select him, in view of his outstanding research work, as will appear from it's report ( Annexure - A 13) dated 9.1.2005 while the enquiry report speaks loudly that the petitioner had submitted Research work, on altogether a different topic, which was allotted and approved for him by the Research Committee formulated for selection of those, who had applied for Ph.D. The petitioner had not qualified even national test of' ''NET' and did not meet out essential requisite qualifications required for the post of Reader as given in the order of termination.
4. This all happened when his uncle Prof. Ramesh Chandra was the Vice-Chancellor of Bundelkhand University.
5. It also emerged during the enquiry that while applying for the post of Data Entry Operator the petitioner had shown himself to be a third divisioner with 40% of marks in graduation while in Bio-data submitted for the post of Lecturer, ( a few months thereafter) he showed himself to be a graduate in Second Division, but refrained to file any testimonial in it's support.
6. Before the petitioner was proceeded against, prior to it, an enquiry was also conducted against his uncle Vice-Chancellor Prof. Ramesh Chandra and the Enquiry Officer while castigating him on court of other charges also castigated prof. Ramesh Chandra for illegally favouring his nephew the petitioner, and to Manage to cling him to the post of Lecturer and Reader.
7. It is on these grounds found proved against the petitioner after proper enquiry the petitioner has been said to be the final-go-bye by the respondents vide the impugned termination order.
8. The foregoing facts are res-ipse liquitor and there is no merit in this writ petition. Petitioner's appointments on the post of Lecturer and Reader were perse illegal. Even assuming he was given permission to continue his study in M.I.B.M. as a regular student , was it in the interest of University to permit him to do his job at the same time as Data Entry Operator since 4.00 P.M. to 12.00 mid night. Such appointments cannot thus be sustained and the writ petition is , therefore, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.