Roshan Lal vs Panjab University, Chandigarh And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P-11) and communication dated 01.01.2021 (Annexure P-6) whereby respondents have rejected his appointment as Principal.

The petitioner pursuant to advertisement applied for the post of Principal. The advertisement was floated by D.A.V. College, New Delhi. In the advertisement, it was incorporated that qualifications would be as per norms of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)/ Panjab University, Chandigarh (PU). The petitioner appeared for interview and a committee comprising 07 members selected him. His selection was subject to fulfilment of eligibility conditions laid down by PU. The petitioner joined service as Principal on 05.07.2019. The respondent-college referred his matter to PU for approval which vide communication dated 04.08.2023 refused to approve petitioner’s appointment on the ground that he does not fulfil condition of experience as prescribed by University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2016. The respondent-college vide communication dated 04.08.2023 relieved the petitioner.

Learned counsel representing the parties are ID IDEM that petitioner complies with requirement of experience as prescribed by AICTE and dispute is confined to experience prescribed by UGC.

Learned counsel representing the respondents submit that college/institute where petitioner was appointed as Principal is no longer in operation. All the teachers have been adjusted elsewhere or relieved.

Faced with this, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner ought to be adjusted like others. He had worked for four 04 years with the respondent.

Learned counsel representing respondent No.3 submits that if petitioner files representation, it would be considered in accordance with law.

Keeping in mind that college is no longer in operation, the petition stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate representation to respondent-college which would consider his representation and pass an appropriate order within two months from today. The endeavour of the respondent-college should not be to dispense with services of the petitioner.