Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10824 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dinesh Chandra Lal Respondent :- Union Of India And 05 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Shankar Tripathi,Rajeev Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Chandan Sharma,Neeraj Tripathi
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Hari Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitioner, a senior professor of University of Allahabad by the instant writ petition seeks the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the notification dated 01.11.2017 under clause 2(b) (i) of ordinance XII of the statute of university of Allahabad.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the consequent Screening conducted by such defective Screening Committee held on 10.11.2017."
By the impugned notification, Screening Committee for Teaching Applicant of Department of Physical Education, University of Allahabad as per ordinance XII clause 2(b)(i) was constituted on the approval of the Vice Chancellor, consisting of Dean, Head of Department and three Experts. Petitioner has been empanelled as an expert. Grievance of the petitioner is that constitution of the Screening Committee is not as per the provision of ordinance as it includes three experts, as against the provision providing for two experts. Further, it is urged that the screening process was completed on 10 November 2017, but the petitioner being an expert was absent for want of due information, in other words, the screening process stands vitiated for want of notice to the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University does not dispute that the quorum of the screening committee consists of two experts other than the Dean and the Head of Department but submits that due to abundant caution a third expert was nominated so as to ensure that the meeting of the screening committee was not postponed for want of quorum. Therefore, it is urged that merely nomination of a third expert would not vitiate the constitution of the screening committee in terms of ordinance XII, further, he submits that the petitioner does not dispute the eligibility and qualification of the expert nominated to the committee. The meetings was held and conducted as per quorum. Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner that he was not informed of the meetings, is incorrect, petitioner has not denied the e-mail communications placed on record informing the petitioner of the date and timing of the re-meeting.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on being confronted with this fact does not dispute that the communications but submits that it should have been given in writing in the form of a letter.
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon going through the averments made in the writ petition and the material brought on record, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 K.K. Maurya (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)