CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 01 AHC CK 0030

Janardan Chaturvedi vs Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 16 January 2003 · Citation: (2003) 5 AWC 3905

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Krishna, J · M. Katju, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 218 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 350 words

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.12.2002, Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3.

The Petitioner is an employee of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur. The Petitioner''s date of birth is 1.1.1943 and as such he retired on reaching the age of 60 years on 31.12.2002. The Petitioner claimed that being a teacher of the institution he is entitled to continue till the end of the academic sessions i.e., till 30.6.2003. Under Chapter 27 para 7 of the Statutes of the University which has been quoted in para 9 of the writ petition, a teacher is entitled to continue till the end of the academic session, i.e., 30th June. The question, therefore, is whether the Petitioner is a teacher as defined in the Act.

4.

Section 2(k) of the U.P. Agriculture Universities Act, 1998, defines teacher as follows:

Teacher'' means a person appointed or recognised by the University for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting and guiding research or extension programmes and includes a person who may be declared by the Statutes to be a teacher.

5.

The Petitioner claimed that he is a teacher in the University as defined in Section 2(k). However, in para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Petitioner has never been a teacher in the University and his basic job was to impart training to the farmers in the various villages. In our opinion, since there is a disputed question involved in this case, i.e., what is the nature of the duties and function of the Petitioner it would be appropriate to relegate the Petitioner to his alternative remedy u/s 23 of the U.P. Agriculture Universities Act. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy with the liberty to the Petitioner to file a representation to the Chancellor u/s 23 of the U.P. Agriculture Universities Act and the Chancellor is requested to decide the representation as the earliest preferably within two months in accordance with law after hearing parties concerned.