Jai NaraIn Vyas University, Jodhpur Vs. Anil Pathak and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1119135
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided OnJan-16-2014
AppellantJai NaraIn Vyas University, Jodhpur
RespondentAnil Pathak and ors
Excerpt:
saw no.66/2003 with one connected matter. 1 1. d.b.civil special appeal (writ) no.66/2003 jnvu, jodhpur versus anil pathak & ors.2. d.b.civil special appeal (writ) no.313/2006 anil pathak versus jnvu, jodhpur date of order: 16th january 2014 hon’ble mr.justice dinesh maheshwari hon’ble mr.justice banwari lal sharma mr.g.r.punia, sr.advocate with mr.kuldeep mathur and mr.vijay purohit, for jnvu, jodhpur. mr.s.d.vyas, for mr.anil pathak. these two intra-court appeals (saw no.66/2003 and saw no.313/2006) are directed against the order dated 21.12.2002 as passed by the learned single judge of this court in sbcwp no.3704/2001: anil pathak versus jai narayan vyas university, jodhpur, which was filed by the appellant of saw no.313/2006 on his claim for appointment to the post of professor in the department of english in jai narayan vyas university, jodhpur. by the impugned order dated 21.12.2002, the learned single judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, while essentially denying the reliefs claimed by the writ-petitioner. it is noticed that these two appeals and several other appeals led by saw no.312/2006: fateh kishan kapil versus jai narayan vyas university, jodhpur & ors., arising out of different writ petitions but involving akin and co-related issues, were considered together by a co-ordinate bench of this court in the judgment dated 07.04.2011 wherein, though some of the observations made by the learned single judge were not approved and some of the appeals were disposed of but, for the merit claim of the appellant of saw no.saw no.66/2003 with one connected matter. 2 313/2006 (the writ-petitioner) for promotion having not been addressed to at the time of arguments, these appeals were ordered to be placed for hearing with the following observations:- “(iv) d.b.civil civil special appeal(writ) no.66/2003 has been preferred by the appellant-university to challenge the judgment of the learned single judge dated 21.12.2002 delivered in s.b.civil writ petition no.3704/2001, whereas the writ petitioner anil pathak also has preferred d.b.civil special appeal no.313/06 to challenge the same judgment by which the appellant anil pathak's writ petition was disposed of by the learned single judge denying the relief to the writ petitioner. for the reasons forgoing, the decision of the learned single judge so far holding that the exercise of promotion in the name of career advancement scheme is without jurisdiction and the whole process of promotion under the career advancement scheme as undertaken by the university is illegal, is set aside. there are several other observations made against the working of the appellant-university and the directions have been given to the state government to consider the points as given in the last para of the judgment which are only suggestions of the court to the state government. the observations made by the learned single judge are only observations and, therefore, we do not find that those observations are required to be addressed by us because the university can certainly take the benefit from the observations, if the university finds it to be a good advise to them. so far as the personal merit in the claim of the petitioner for promotion is concerned, that has also not been addressed to this bench during arguments, therefore, on merits of the case in d.b.special appeal no.66/2003 and d.b.civil special appeal no.313/2006, the matters be listed for hearing before the division bench.”. at the later stage, when these appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the university was requested to ascertain as to whether the relief sought for by the writ- petitioner had, in the meantime, been granted or not. today, on the appeals having been taken up for hearing again, it is an admitted position between the parties that the writ-petitioner mr.anil pathak was, in fact, accorded promotion to the post of professor w.e.f.19.05.2001 by an order dated 09.04.2011. a copy of the order dated 09.04.2011 has been filed by the appellant-university in saw no.66/2003 with an additional affidavit dated 21.02.2013. it is also informed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ- saw no.66/2003 with one connected matter. 3 petitioner mr.anil pathak that later, by an order dated 24.01.2013, the concerned incumbents were allowed the applicable pay scales; and the writ-petitioner, who had by that time retired, was also held eligible for such pay scale from 19.05.2001. a copy of the order dated 24.01.2013, as shown before the court, may also be placed on record. in view of the facts noticed above, this much is clear that so far the claim made in the writ petition is concerned, nothing of the cause or grievance with the writ-petitioner could be considered surviving and hence, these appeals could only be treated as infructuous. however, when it is sought to be contended on behalf of the writ- petitioner that necessary payment pursuant to the above referred orders dated 09.04.2011 and 24.01.2013 has not been released, it is considered appropriate and hence, observed that in case of any grievance remaining in that regard, the writ-petitioner, i.e., the appellant of saw no.313/2006, shall make a representation to the university concerned, i.e., the appellant of saw no.66/2003 within four weeks from today; and it shall be required of the university to take appropriate decision thereupon expeditiously and in any case, within eight weeks from the date of making of the representation. it is also made clear that in case of any grievance remaining yet or arising later, the parties shall be free to take recours.to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. subject to observations foregoing, these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. no costs. (banwari lal sharma),j. (dinesh maheshwari),j. cpgoyal/- saw no.66/2003 with one connected matter. 4 d.b.civil special appeal (writ) no.313/2006 anil pathak versus jnvu, jodhpur date of order: 16th january 2014 hon’ble mr.justice dinesh maheshwari hon’ble mr.justice banwari lal sharma mr.g.r.punia, sr.advocate with mr.kuldeep mathur and mr.vijay purohit, for jnvu, jodhpur. mr.s.d.vyas, for mr.anil pathak. this special appeal is dismissed as infructuous with observations [vide common order made in d.b.civil special appeal (writ) no.66/2003 : jnvu, jodhpur versus anil pathak & ors.].(banwari lal sharma),j. (dinesh maheshwari),j. cpgoyal/-
Judgment:

SAW No.66/2003 With one connected matter.

1 1.

D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.66/2003 JNVU, Jodhpur versus Anil Pathak & ORS.2.

D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.313/2006 Anil Pathak versus JNVU, Jodhpur DATE OF ORDER

: 16th January 2014 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.G.R.Punia, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kuldeep Mathur and Mr.Vijay Purohit, for JNVU, Jodhpur.

Mr.S.D.Vyas, for Mr.Anil Pathak.

<><><> These two intra-court appeals (SAW No.66/2003 and SAW No.313/2006) are directed against the order dated 21.12.2002 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SBCWP No.3704/2001: Anil Pathak versus Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur, which was filed by the appellant of SAW No.313/2006 on his claim for appointment to the post of Professor in the department of English in Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur.

By the impugned order dated 21.12.2002, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, while essentially denying the reliefs claimed by the writ-petitioner.

It is noticed that these two appeals and several other appeals led by SAW No.312/2006: Fateh Kishan Kapil versus Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur & Ors., arising out of different writ petitions but involving akin and co-related issues, were considered together by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 07.04.2011 wherein, though some of the observations made by the learned Single Judge were not approved and some of the appeals were disposed of but, for the merit claim of the appellant of SAW No.SAW No.66/2003 With one connected matter.

2 313/2006 (the writ-petitioner) for promotion having not been addressed to at the time of arguments, these appeals were ordered to be placed for hearing with the following observations:- “(IV) D.B.Civil Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.66/2003 has been preferred by the appellant-University to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2002 delivered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3704/2001, whereas the writ petitioner Anil Pathak also has preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.313/06 to challenge the same judgment by which the appellant Anil Pathak's writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge denying the relief to the writ petitioner.

For the reasons forgoing, the decision of the learned Single Judge so far holding that the exercise of promotion in the name of Career Advancement Scheme is without jurisdiction and the whole process of promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme as undertaken by the University is illegal, is set aside.

There are several other observations made against the working of the appellant-University and the directions have been given to the State Government to consider the points as given in the last para of the judgment which are only suggestions of the Court to the State Government.

The observations made by the learned Single Judge are only observations and, therefore, we do not find that those observations are required to be addressed by us because the University can certainly take the benefit from the observations, if the University finds it to be a good advise to them.

So far as the personal merit in the claim of the petitioner for promotion is concerned, that has also not been addressed to this Bench during arguments, therefore, on merits of the case in D.B.Special Appeal No.66/2003 and D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.313/2006, the matters be listed for hearing before the Division Bench.”

.

At the later stage, when these appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the University was requested to ascertain as to whether the relief sought for by the writ- petitioner had, in the meantime, been granted or not.

Today, on the appeals having been taken up for hearing again, it is an admitted position between the parties that the writ-petitioner Mr.Anil Pathak was, in fact, accorded promotion to the post of Professor w.e.f.19.05.2001 by an order dated 09.04.2011.

A copy of the order dated 09.04.2011 has been filed by the appellant-University in SAW No.66/2003 with an additional affidavit dated 21.02.2013.

It is also informed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ- SAW No.66/2003 With one connected matter.

3 petitioner Mr.Anil Pathak that later, by an order dated 24.01.2013, the concerned incumbents were allowed the applicable pay scales; and the writ-petitioner, who had by that time retired, was also held eligible for such pay scale from 19.05.2001.

A copy of the order dated 24.01.2013, as shown before the Court, may also be placed on record.

In view of the facts noticed above, this much is clear that so far the claim made in the writ petition is concerned, nothing of the cause or grievance with the writ-petitioner could be considered surviving and hence, these appeals could only be treated as infructuous.

However, when it is sought to be contended on behalf of the writ- petitioner that necessary payment pursuant to the above referred orders dated 09.04.2011 and 24.01.2013 has not been released, it is considered appropriate and hence, observed that in case of any grievance remaining in that regard, the writ-petitioner, i.e., the appellant of SAW No.313/2006, shall make a representation to the University concerned, i.e., the appellant of SAW No.66/2003 within four weeks from today; and it shall be required of the University to take appropriate decision thereupon expeditiously and in any case, within eight weeks from the date of making of the representation.

It is also made clear that in case of any grievance remaining yet or arising later, the parties shall be free to take recouRs.to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Subject to observations foregoing, these appeals are dismissed as infructuous.

No costs.

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

Cpgoyal/- SAW No.66/2003 With one connected matter.

4 D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.313/2006 Anil Pathak versus JNVU, Jodhpur DATE OF ORDER

: 16th January 2014 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA Mr.G.R.Punia, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Kuldeep Mathur and Mr.Vijay Purohit, for JNVU, Jodhpur.

Mr.S.D.Vyas, for Mr.Anil Pathak.

<><><> This special appeal is dismissed as infructuous with observations [Vide common order made in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.66/2003 : JNVU, Jodhpur versus Anil Pathak & Ors.].(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

Cpgoyal/-