M.N. Khan (Prof.) (Dr.) vs State of J&K

Mr. Hasnain Massodi, J. - Petitioners are members of teaching/non-teaching staff of Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and

Technology of Kashmir (""University"" for short). They are aggrieved with University Order No. 668(Est) of 2014 dated 25th October 2014,

whereby existing Department/Faculties are reorganized under aegis of different larger departments, renamed as Divisions. The order further brings

administrative and academic control of Agronomy, Plant Breeding and Genetics, Agri Economics and Marketing, Agri Extension and

Communication, Temperate Sericulture Research Institute, Mirgund, under Dean Faculty of Agriculture.

Petitioners call in question Order No. 668(Est) of 2014 dated 25th October 2014, in writ petition on hand on the ground that decision reflected

in the order is violative of J&K Sher-i-Kashmir Universities of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Act, 1982 (for short ""Act of 1982"").

Petitioners' case is that decision to reorganize Departments/Faculties under aegis of different larger departments, is not taken by authority

competent under the Act of 1982, to take such a decision. It is pleaded that as decision incorporated in the order impugned in petition, is not taken

by competent authority, University Council decision taken in its 21st meeting occupies the field. Petitioners even question respondent no. 4's right

to hold position of Vice Chancellor of University. They on strength of grounds urged in petition, seek following relief:

a) By writ of certiorari, quashing order No. 668(Est) of 2014 dated 25th October 2014, contained in Annexure A;

b) By writ of certiorari, quashing decision taken by University Council in its 22nd meeting held on 19th April 2012 for item no. 3.14 and also UO

no. 1027(Est) of 2013 dated 9th December 2013, contained in Annexure D, in consequence thereto a command be issued to respondents to

adhere to decision taken in 21st University Council meeting dated 5th September 2011 at item no. 3.19 whereby University has to prepare

comprehensive paper/plan as regards proposed consolidation of its impact on the issues like staff movement, infrastructure development etc. and

thereafter furnish the same to State Agriculture Production Department, where after the Government will examine the approval and take decision

after assessing the pros and cons of such proposal;

c) By writ of mandamus, command be issued that till this exercise is not completed, the University be prohibited to go ahead with such proposal of

consolidating faculties and also having faculties at one campus and also courses of undergraduate and post graduate;

d) By writ of quo warranto, directing respondent no. 4 Vice Chancellor, to establish that he can hold the post of Vice Chancellor of the University;

e) By writ of prohibition, directing respondent no. 4 not to act as Vice Chancellor, SKUAST, Shalimar, Srinagar, till the Hon'ble Court does not

decide the rights of respondent no. 4;

The writ petition is opposed by respondents, inter alia, on ground that none of rights of petitioners is violated by impugned order/decision, and

therefore, they have no cause to maintain writ petition. It is insisted that Board of Management is, in terms of SKUAST Act, empowered to

recommend establishment of new faculty/ department/station/division/research substation, amalgamation of two or more faculties into a single

faculty, abolition of a faculty or reconstitution of any of existing faculties at the instance of Academic Council. Respondents deny that impugned

order/decision has been made/taken by incompetent authority or is otherwise not in tune with the Act. Reference in this regard is made to different

provisions of the Act. It is stated that Graduate Courses in Agriculture and Horticulture are run at Agriculture College, Wadura, now a part of

SKUAST. It is pleaded that University over years has acquired land at Shuhama, Alasteng (42.5 hectares), Shalimar (42 hectares), Benihama

Ganderbal (1000 Kanals), to run different academic courses/programmes at different sites. Respondents' case is that with growing number of

students, expanding faculties/departments and availability of experienced teaching staff, it was found necessary to divide different

programmes/courses into divisions and set up one or more divisions at different places, so that services of faculty members are made available to

students, enrolled in such departments/divisions.

Respondents are said to have, as part of consolidation scheme, conceived idea of establishing Subject Matter Faculties. It is pleaded that the

proposal was also necessitated by Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) guidelines. It is averred that University, after decision was taken

by University Council in its 21st meeting, accepted the request of Board of Management of University and vide University Order no. 324 (Est) of

2014 dated May 06, 2014, set up Faculty of Horticulture at Shalimar and included Subject Matter Divisions mentioned in the order in the Faculty.

Similarly vide University Order No. 324 (Est) of 2014, dated 6th May 2014, Subject Matter Divisions of Agronomy, Plant Pathology, Plant

Breeding and Genetics, Entomology, Soil Science, hitherto part of main campus, were directed to be part of Faculty of Agriculture. As a sequel to

reconstitution of Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture was upgraded to Post Graduate level and Post Graduate

Programmes started at Wadura Campus. Respondents maintain that decisions have been taken for overall improvement of various academic

programmes run by University.

Respondents deny that respondent no. 4 was not competent to hold position of Vice Chancellor of University. Insisting that respondent no. 4

was eligible to hold the position, respondents have in para 20 of Reply detailed his academic achievements and his association with ambitious

programmes run by University and other such Institutions. They, on the grounds urged in reply, seek outright dismissal of writ petition.

Heard and considered.

Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology is creation of J&K Sher-i-Kashmir Universities of Agricultural Sciences and

Technology Act, 1982. Chapter III of the Act of 1982 provides for different authorities of University and delineates their powers and duties.

University Council is at top in hierarchy of authorities provided under the Act of 1982. Section 10 gives its composition while Section 11

enumerates its powers and functions. It is to consist of five members with option for Council to co-opt one or two Specialists as members to

advice for future plans, development and expansion. The Chancellor is to preside over meeting of University Council. In his absence, Pro

Chancellor and where Pro Chancellor is also not available, Agriculture Minister is to preside over Council meeting. In terms of Section 11 of the

Act of 1982, powers and functions of University Council include power to consider any matter referred to it by Board of Management.

The Chancellor, as provided under Section 12, is authorised to constitute Board of Management. The Board is to consist of 09 members

including Vice Chancellor, Planning Commissioner, Commissioner/Secretary Finance Department, Commissioner/Secretary Agriculture production

Department. The Board, in terms of Section 13 of the Act of 1982, is to be Chief Executive Body of University. It is saddled with duty to manage

and supervise properties and activities of University and conduct all administrative affairs of University, not otherwise provided for in the Act.

Subsection 2 of Section 13 identify powers and functions of Board. Clauses (h) (k) and (l), are relevant to present controversy, need to be

noticed:

(h) to consider and approve the recommendations of the Academic Research and Extension Education Council where required;

(k) to recommend to the University Council establishment of a new Department, Division or Research Station/sub-division or abolition of any one

thereof or otherwise re-constitution of Department/Divisions or Research Stations on the recommendation of the Academic Council;

(I) to recommend to the University Council establishment of a new faculty, amalgamation of two or more faculties into a single faculty or abolition

of a faculty or reconstitution of any of the existing faculties on the recommendation of the Academic Council.

Academic Council is one of authorities identified under Section 9 of the Act of 1982. Section 14 gives its composition, while Section 15 lays

down its powers and functions. Academic Council has Vice Chancellor as its Ex-officio Chairman and amongst others, Director Research and

Dean of Faculties as its members. Academic Council is to advise on all academic matters, inter alia, regarding constitution or reconstitution of

division/ departments/ faculties of teaching research and extension education. University, in terms of Section 18 of the Act, is to initially have

Faculties of Agriculture, Veterinary Science and animal Husbandry and Post-Graduate Studies. Section 18 envisions establishment of Faculties of

Forestry, Basic Science and Humanities and such other Faculties as may be prescribed.

Having noticed salient features of the Act of 1982 and in particular authorities of University that are to run affairs of University, let us focus on

controversy raised in petition.

Petitioners, as already stated, are aggrieved with reorganisation of Faculties. They in particular are sour about establishment of Subject Matter

Faculties. Main plank of their case is decision taken by University and reflected in University Order No. 668 (Est.) of 2014 dated 25th October

2014. Their case is that decision of University Council dated 19th April 2012 in its 22nd meeting at Item No. 3.14 and U.O. No. 1027 (Est) of

2013 dated 9th December 2013, are not in tune with procedure laid down under the Act. Decisions in question, according to petitioners, offend

mandate and spirit of Section 11, 13, and 15 of the Act of 1982.

Perusal of record would reveal that suggestion for consolidation of Faculties at one place had come from Minister of Agriculture in 20th

meeting of University Council held on 21st March 2011. The matter came up for consideration before Board Management. The Board, in its 51st

meeting held on 9th August 2011, considered consolidation of Faculties/Colleges with both UG and PG Programmes at one place. The Board

approved proposal and decided to report decision to University. The minutes recorded, in this behalf, need to be noticed:

Supplementary Agenda View of the Board on Faculties

Item No: 51-(S-1) BOM

Vice Chancellor informed the Board about the ongoing thinking about merits of consolidating different Faculty Programmes (UG and PG) at one

place. House was unanimous in approving the view that for multi campus situation of this University, it will be better approach to allow

development of Faculties/Colleges with both UG and PG programs at one place. It will mean that UG and PG of a particular Faculty are run at

one place and under one Dean of the Faculty. Board advised the Vice Chancellor to link implementation of this scheme with the Rs. 100 cr.

project to create facilities accordingly, at following places:

Faculty of Horticulture at Shalimar

Faculty of Agriculture Engineering at Shalimar.

Faculty of Agribusiness Management at Shalimar

Faculty of Agriculture at Wadura

Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Shuhama

Faculty of Fisheries at Rangil

Faculty of Forestry at Ganderbal

The matter came up for consideration on 21st meeting of University Council held on 5th September 2011. It finds mention in Para 3.19,

reproduced hereunder:

3.19 Consolidation of Faculties at one place

(i) Minister for Agriculture had (at the 20th Council Meeting) suggested that the University should consider consolidation of Faculties (UG and PG

programmes) at one location for ensuring effective utilization of resources. The VC stated that the Board of Management of SKUAST-K had at its

51st meeting considered the aforesaid matter and recommended the following Consolidation Plan.

a. Faculty of Horticulture at Shalimar.

b. Faculty of Agriculture Engineering at Shalimar.

c. Faculty of Agri-business Management at Shalimar (likely to come up).

d. Faculty of Agriculture in Wadura.

e. Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Shuhama.

f. Faculty of Fisheries at Rangil.

g. Faculty of Forestry at Ganderbal

(ii) The Pro-Chancellor said that the issue of consolidation of Facilities has an element of political sensitivity and desired that the University should

prepare a comprehensive paper about the proposed consolidation and its impact on issues like staff movement, infrastructure development etc and

furnish it to the State Agriculture Production Department, where after the Government will examine the proposal and taken a decision after

considering the pros and cons.

The matter again came up for consideration in 22nd meeting of University Council held on 19th April 2012. Para 3.14 reflects decision taken

on consolidation of Faculties at one place. It reads as:

Consolidation of Faculties at one place

The Council desired that inter-campus shifting of the staff may be done in phased manner, in order to ensure the consolidation of the Faculties at

each Campus, as per the plan approved by the Council.

University Council in its 27th meeting held on 20th October 2014, considered the matter and upheld actions taken by University towards

consolidation of subject matter Faculties. Chancellor even asked University to expedite the matter and take it to its logical end.

The record on file would reveal that the idea of consolidation of Faculties and establishment of Subject Matter Faculties was conceived at

appropriate level accepted and recommended by Board of Management and thereafter approved by highest authority in University, i.e. University

Council. Proposal, therefore, went through prescribed routes, satisfied all requirements and was approved by authority competent under the Act.

The orders, impugned in writ petition, therefore, cannot be faulted on the ground that proposal did not originate at appropriate level and was not

approved by competent authority in terms of the Act of 1982. Petitioner's grievance that rules were observed in breach while taking decision in

question, is without any substance.

Above discussion apart, decision taken by University and reflected in University Order No. 668 (Est.) of 2014 dated 25th October 2014 and

other communications impugned in petition, appear to be in best interest of University, its Faculty, Research Scholars and student community,

pursuing UG and PG programmes in University. With consolidation of Faculties and establishment of Subject Matter Faculties, the Faculty and

Experts in particular discipline would be available at one Campus and their guidance readily available to scholars and students enrolled in Faculty.

Petitioners, therefore, cannot be heard saying that decision, otherwise in the interests of University must be undone on technical ground that too,

without substance It appears that petitioners and their other colleagues are averse to decision taken by University and reflected in University orders

impugned in petition, only because it is likely to put them to some inconvenience. They are expected to realise that by opting for Faculty position in

a premier education institution of the State they wedded to mission to serve students, scholars and society at large. They must hone skills of those

who look to them for guidance instead of finding fault with ambitious proposal destined to help University, achieve excellence, only because it may

expose them to some inconvenience.

Petitioners' challenge to appointment of respondent no. 4 as Vice Chancellor of respondent University appears to be nothing except spill over

of their anger against decision taken by Board of Management and University Council, to go for consolidation of Faculties and establishment of

Subject Matter Faculties. Be that as it may, because of developments subsequent to filing of writ petition, we are not required to give a close look

to para 20 of reply-mapping out educational qualification, work experience, administrative experience, awards received and selected publications

of respondent no. 4 - to find out whether he was eligible and deserved to be appointed as Vice Chancellor. Respondent no. 4 has since

relinquished his office and has been replaced by new Vice Chancellor. Challenge to his appointment, therefore, is rendered infructuous.

For all that is discussed above, I find no merit in writ petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

University is expected to go ahead with Faculties consolidation and establishment of Subject Matter Faculties programme with due despatch,

so that time consumed by litigation is covered by extra speed in implementation of proposal.