AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. I.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinayak Saxena, holding brief for Mr. Jai Deep Narain Mathur.
A preliminary objection has been raised that against the impugned appointment order, the petitioner has got right to represent his cause before the Visitor u/s 36 of the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1983, in short Act. However, Mr. I.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation to the Visitor is not maintainable.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
Section 36 of the Act, for convenience, is reproduced as under:
If any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be, a member of the Institute, Governing Body, any authority or other body of the Institute or whether any decision of the Institutes, Governing Body or any authority or other body of the Institute is in conformity with this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder the matter shall be referred to the Visitor and the decision of the Visitor shall be final:
Provided that no reference made under this section shall be made more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time;
Provided further that the Visitor may in exceptional circumstances act suo moto or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso.
A plain reading of Section 36 indicates that where any question arises as to whether a person has been duly elected or appointed or is entitled to be a member of the institute, Governing Body, or any authority or other body of the Institute, the matter shall be referred to the Visitor and decision of the Visitor shall be final.
Thus, a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 36 depicts that with regard to appointment of a person in Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, grievance may be raised before the Visitor. Using of word, ''or'' is in disjunctive nature and deals with separate circumstance and conditions with regard to various controversies. Thus, the Legislature to their wisdom has used the word, ''appointment'' in Section 36 of the Act which indicates that the appointment of a person in S.G.P.G.I. may be impugned before the Visitor. It further makes it explicit that whether such appointment has been made by any authority, Governing Body or any officer of the institute. In any case, the validity of such appointments can be questioned by the aggrieved party before the Visitor.
In view of above, we are of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents seems to have got force. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with regard to the validity of appointment of the opposite party No. 3 on account of alternative remedy available to the petitioner u/s 36 of the Act.
It has been submitted by the petitioner''s counsel that the criteria of appointment has been changed unlawfully and the opposite party No. 3 has been appointed in a very arbitrary manner. It has also been submitted that the opposite party No. 3 has committed mis-conduct as he was pursuing the studies at D.A.V. College, Kanpur simultaneously while discharging duty at S.G.P.G.I., without seeking prior permission from the institute.
Supplementing his arguments, the petitioner''s counsel further submits that with a view to appoint the opposite party No. 3, the respondents have changed the criteria of selection which was given in the earlier advertisement. All these aspects of the matter shall be looked into by the Visitor while deciding the controversy.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and as submitted by the petitioner''s counsel, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Visitor within a period of ten days. In case the petitioner submits a representation within ten days, the Visitor shall decide the same on merit in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the representation.
Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
No order as to costs.