Dr. Madan Shandil vs Indira Gandhi National Open University And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and communication Annexure P-4 dated 7.6.2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside as also the order issued for appointment of respondent No.3 as Coordinator in IGNOU Study at Centre of Excellence, Government Post Graduate College, Sanjauli, Shimla.

(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner as Coordinator being senior most faculty as recommended by HOHI, in the interest of law and justice.”

The case of the petitioner is that he is serving as an Associate Professor in the subject to Economics with respondent No.2-College. According to the petitioner, in order to manage and supervise the Study Centres, the Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators are appointed. There is in vogue a Manual for Learners Support Centre, copy of the relevant extract is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1, which culled out as to who can be appointed as a Coordinator. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause 3.2 of the said Manual and submitted that in terms of the Manual, whenever there is a vacancy of Coordinator, the Head of the Host Institution has to prepare a panel of three Senior-most Academics in order of preference for appointment of Coordinator in the prescribed format for managing, supervising and undertaking the day to day activities of IGNOU, under the overall supervision of the Head of the Host Institution. However, the panel is to comprise of Senior-most Academics, less than 55 years in age.

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that presently a vacancy has fallen vacant after the superannuation of Sh. Lokinder Thakur, in the respondent No.2-College. He further submitted that after the said vacancy fell vacant, earlier a panel of three Academics was sent by the Head of Host Institution, which comprised of Dr. Naresh Verma, aged 57 years, Dr. Deepak Kapret, aged 56 ½ years and the petitioner, aged 53 years. According to him, as an objection has been raised qua the said panel on the basis of the age factor, again a fresh panel was sent and in the said panel, the private respondent, who was more than 55 years of age, was reflected at Sr. No.1, the petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.2 and one Dr. Meenakshi Sharma, was reflected at Sr. No.3. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-3, wherein these facts have been mentioned by the petitioner in his representation, addressed to Regional Director, IGNOU, Regional Centre, Shimla. He further submitted that the respondents in gross violation to the contents of the Manual for Learners Support Centre, have appointed the private respondent as a Coordinator, which act of the respondents is in violation of the Manual, as the private respondent was more than 55 years of age, as on the day, when he was appointed as a Coordinator and accordingly he submitted that as the appointment of the private respondent is in violation of the Manual for Learners Support Centre, the present petition be allowed by setting aside the appointment of the private respondent as a Coordinator as also Annexure P-4, a communication sent to the petitioner by the respondents.

Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 3 respectively, have disputed the contention of the petitioner. By referring to the replies filed by the said respondents, learned counsel have submitted that there is no infirmity in the appointment of the private respondent which has been made in terms of the Standard Operating Procedure as also UGC Regulations and there is no age bar contained in the Standard Operating Procedure as well as UGC Regulations. Accordingly, it was prayed on behalf of the respondents that as there is no merit in the petition, the same be dismissed.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner and submitted that the Manual for Learners Support Centres has not been amended till date and the Standard Operating Procedure only prescribes the mode and the exigencies in which a Coordinator can be appointed. However, the same cannot be said to have supplanted the condition of 55 years, as provided in the Manual for Learners Support Centres. As far as UGC Regulations are concerned, learned Senior Counsel submitted that these Regulations are general in nature, whereas, as far as the appointments of the Coordinators are concerned, they are specifically governed by the Manual for Learners Support Centres. Accordingly, he submitted that the petition be allowed, as prayed for.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith.

The controversy in the present case is in a very narrow compass. The same is as to whether an Academic, who is more than 55 years of age can be recommended and be appointed as a Coordinator or not. The Court has been apprised that the private respondent has been appointed as a Coordinator on 15.07.2024. It has also not been disputed that as on the day, when his name was recommended and as on the day, when he was appointed as a Coordinator, he was more than 55 years of age.

The Manual for Learners Support Centres demonstrates that in terms of Clause 3.2 thereof, whenever there is a vacancy of a Coordinator, the Head of Host Institution has to prepare a panel of three Senior-most Academics in order of preference, but from amongst those who are less than 55 years in age. On the other hand, the Standard Operating Procedure, which has also been appended with the reply filed by the respondent No.1, as Annexure R1/2 demonstrates that the same only prescribes the procedure to be adopted for the appointment of a part time Coordinator. A perusal of the relevant portion thereof demonstrates that the Standard Operating Procedure refers to the situations on account whereof process can be initiated for the appointment of a new Coordinator and the mode and manner for initiating the process and offering appointment. However, the Standard Operating Procedure does not supplants the Manual for Learner Support Centres as far as the bar of age mentioned therein is concerned. The Standard Operating Procedure neither refers to the age bar nor there is any reference therein that age bar, which is prescribed in the Manual, stands repealed or abrogated.

Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered view that Manual for Learner Support Centres which envisages the age bar as far as the reference of Academics for appointment of Coordinator is concerned, is the principal document which lays down the eligibility condition of an Academic being less than 55 years of age and the Standard Operating Procedure only facilitates the implementation of the Manual, which has been framed for the Learner Support Centres, therefore, the contents of the Standard Operating Procedure cannot be of any use, so as to do away with the provisions of the Manual for Learner Support Centres. This Court is making this observation for the reason that during the course of the hearing of this petition, opportunity was given to the respondents to demonstrate as to whether the age referred to in the Manual for Learner Support Centres stood amended or modified and the Court has been apprised that this is not so.

Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of considering the private respondent for appointment, against the post of Coordinator and appointing him as a Coordinator, despite the fact that private respondent is more than 55 years of age, is held to be bad and set aside. Respondents are directed to appoint the Coordinator strictly by following the provisions of the Manual for Learners Support Centre. Petition stands disposed of so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.