Since the petitioner’s case is already under consideration, no further direction needs to be issued: High Court of Uttarakhand.
The case of the petitioner was already under consideration for promotion., hence the court found it fit to not issue any direction. A divisional Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma, in the matter of Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava Vs. Uttarakhand Ayurved University and others (WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 272 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner has challenged the legality of the advertisement, issued, by the Vice-Chancellor of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University, wherein 2 two posts for Professor, in the Department of Panchkarma, were advertised. In the present case, the petitioner had completed his Graduation (BAMS), in Indian Medicine in 2002, from the Government Ayurvedic College, Varanasi. In 2008, he joined as a Lecturer in the Ayurved and Unani Tibbia College, New Delhi. Subsequently, on 12.01.2011 he again joined the Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College, Haridwar. While the petitioner was teaching at the said College, in 2013 he completed his Ph.D. in Panchkarma. Thereafter, on 20.02.2015 he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. He was duly nominated as a Professor on 26.12.2016. While he was discharging his academic duties, he also acted as the Deputy Registrar and Proctor of the University. According to the petitioner, the university asked the faculty members to submit their applications for promotion to the post of Professor, as provided under the Career Advancement Scheme under the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Rules and Regulations, 2015. The petitioner had also submitted his application. After a while, the Petitioner also submitted a representation to the University. He was also called for an interview but was later informed that such an interview was been canceled. Further, the petitioner submitted that the University had issued an advertisement for two posts of Professor in the Department of Panchkarma. Thereby upon feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed this writ petition. The counsel for the university submitted that there was an advertisement for 4 posts, 2 posts for promotion, and the other two for direct recruitment. The counsel also pointed that one promotion post was occupied and the other was vacant, for which they were to consider the petitioner. Therefore, according to the counsel, the University is justified in advertising the two posts for direct recruitment. According to him, the case of the petitioner was already under consideration for promotion. Therefore, according to the counsel, the present Writ Petition was highly misplaced. The court observed that- “Since the petitioner’s case is already under consideration against the one vacant promotional post, no further direction needs to be issued by this Court”. Thereby the Writ petition was disposed of. Click Here For The Judgement
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA WRIT PETITIONNo. 2721 05th AUGUST 2021 Between: Dr. Alok Kumar Srivastava. and Uttarakhand Ayurved University and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Chauhan the learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent no. Mr. Suyash Pant the learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. K.N. Joshi learned Deputy the State of Advocate General Uttarakhand. The Court made the following : JUDGMENT :The petitioner has challenged the legality of the advertisement dated 09.07.2021 issued by the Vice Chancellor of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University wherein two posts for Professor in the Department of Panchkarma were advertised. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner had completed his Graduation in the Indian Medicine in 2002 from the Government Ayurvedic College Varanasi. His name is registered as Doctor with Parishad Pradesh. Subsequently in 2004 he completed his MD from the Banaras Hindu University. Thereafter on 03.07.2005 he joined as a Lecturer in the Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College Haridwar. In 2008 he joined as a Lecturer in the and Unani Tibbia College New Delhi. Subsequently on 12.01.2011 he again joined the Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College Haridwar. While the petitioner was teaching at the said College in 2013 he completed his Ph.D in Panchkarma. Thereafter on 20.02.2015 he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor. He was duly nominated as a Professor on 26.12.2016. While he was discharging his academic duties he also acted as the Deputy Registrar and Proctor of the University. 3. According to the petitioner on 14.02.2020 the faculty members were asked by the University to submit their applications for promotion to the post of Professor as provided under the Career Advancement Scheme under the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Rules and Regulations 2015. Pursuant to the said request the petitioner claims that he had submitted his application for promotion. Although the petitioner has submitted his application for quite some time the University is sitting over the entire issue. Therefore on 09.12.2020 the petitioner had submitted a representation to the University. Even thereafter on 01.02.2021 he has submitted another representation to the University. Consequently he was called for interview on 24.02.2021 for the post of Professor the Department of Panchkarma. However on 23.02.2021 he received a letter from the University informing him that the interview has been cancelled. But no reasons were assigned for the same. Further according to the petitioner on 09.07.2021 suddenly the University has issued an advertisement for two posts of Professor in the Department of Panchkarma. Hence the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Suyash Pant the learned counsel for the University informs this Court that in fact there are four sanctioned posts of Professor in the Department of Panchkarma. Out of the said four posts two posts are for promotion and two for direct recruitment. Already one promotional post is occupied. However the second post for promotion is lying vacant. Against this very post the name of the petitioner is being considered. Two posts which were for direct recruitment have been advertised by the impugned advertisement. Therefore according to the learned counsel the University is justified in advertising the two posts for direct recruitment. By the impugned advertisement the civil and fundamental rights of the petitioner are not adversely affected. According to him the case of the petitioner is already under consideration for promotion. Therefore according to the learned counsel the present Writ Petition is highly misplaced Mr. P.K. Chauhan the learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the statement of the learned the University should be recorded as abovementioned. Since the petitioner’s case is already under consideration against the one vacant promotional post no further direction needs to be issued by this Court. Therefore the Writ Petition stands disposed of. RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN C.J. ALOK KUMAR VERMA J. Dt: 05th AUGUST 2021 