Appointment Not Challenged In Reasonable Time: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment Which Quashed Appointment Of An Assistant Professor

Home   /   Appointment Not Challenged In Reasonable Time: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment Which Quashed Appointment Of An Assistant Professor

first_imgNews UpdatesAppointment Not Challenged In Reasonable Time: Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Judgment Which Quashed Appointment Of An Assistant Professor LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK29 Jan 2021 10:43 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order which quashed appointment of an Assistant Professor, observing that the appointment was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions of the applicable Act.In this case, the Executive Council of King George Medical University, on 08.08.2005, approved the recommendations of Selection Committee appointing appellant as…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order which quashed appointment of an Assistant Professor, observing that the appointment was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions of the applicable Act.In this case, the Executive Council of King George Medical University, on 08.08.2005, approved the recommendations of Selection Committee appointing appellant as Assistant Professor and Dr. Jitendra Kumar Rao as Lecturer. On 13.02.2009, Rao submitted a representation before the Chancellor challenging Pooran Chand’s appointment and also claiming seniority over him. This representation was rejected by the Chancellor and therefore he approached the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing appointment of Pooran Chand as Assistant Professor.In appeal, the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah noted the provisions of King George Medical University Act, regarding the time limit for submitting representations and observed that appointment of Pooran Chand as Assistant Professor was not challenged or questioned in accordance with provisions of the Act. The court said: Section 53 provides that if any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, and the decision of the Chancellor thereon shall be final. The Section also contains proviso to the effect that no reference in this Section shall be made more than three months after the date when question could have been raised for the first time. Although, by the second proviso, Chancellor can entertain a reference after expiry of the said period. There is an object and purpose for entertaining any question regarding appointment of member of any authority or body whether any person has been duly appointed within a period of three months. The members of the teaching faculty of the University be it Lecturer or Assistant Professor are entrusted with teaching, which is to be imparted according to academic calendar. It is in the interest of the University that all doubts regarding appointment of teachers are raised within a period of three months to have an early decision by Chancellor to give quietus to the disputes in the University.The Court said that the appointment could not be allowed to be challenged after four years in the writ petition. While allowing the appeal, the court further observed:”The Act which Governs the appointment of Assistant Professors and Lecturers in the University itself provides a mechanism for questioning an appointment, i.e., by representation to the Chancellor that too within a period of three months. Any challenge to appointment after more than three years cannot be entertained as we have already held that respondent No.4 in his representation before the Chancellor never challenged the appointment of appellant as Assistant Professor and had filed representation only claiming seniority over appellant after he got promoted as Assistant Professor himself in the year 2007, High Court ought not to have entertained the challenge to the appointment of appellant in the writ petition and ought to have confined the consideration of claim of respondent No.4 for seniority over the appellant. When the appointment of appellant was not challenged in reasonable time as per the provisions of the Act, 2002, it is not in the ends of justice to permit the respondent No.4 to challenge such appointment in the High Court in the writ petition for the first time, after more than four years of the appointment.”CASE: POORAN CHAND vs CHANCELLOR [CIVIL APPEAL NOS.268-269 of 2021]CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR ShahCOUNSEL: Sr Adv Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv S.R. Singh, Adv Vishnu Shankar JainCITATION: LL 2021 SC 50 Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta

Tags