Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6105/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6105 of 2010
=====================================
DR
V D SHUKLA, PROFESSOR & HEAD, PANCHKARMA DEPARTMENT -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
AYURVED UNIVERSITY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR SHALIN N MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RC KAKKAD for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 07/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Yesterday
i.e. on 6th September 2010, the matter was adjourned for
today as learned advocate Mr. Kakkad wanted time to take instructions
by keeping respondent no. 3 Director, Institute of Post Graduate
Teaching & Research in Ayurved, present in the Court.
2.0 The
Director respondent no. 3 is present in the Court. Learned
advocate Mr. Kakkad submitted, on instructions from respondent no. 3
Director, that there is a P. G. Board and that P. G. Board has
power to prescribe the manner and method of writing confidential
remarks of person like petitioners.
2.1 This
Court is not able to accept this submission in absence of any
specific provision being shown to this Court. Besides, the fact is
that the Gujarat Ayurved University and others did not plead to this
effect in an earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.
4126 of 2008 filed by this very petitioner for quashing of the
adverse C.Rs. communicated to him.
2.2 Learned
advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the petitioner invited attention of the
Court to various aspects of the matter including Annexure ‘B’ – page
25, Annexure ‘N’ – page 47, whereby it is decided that Professor, RR
Dwivedi, who is referred to as Professor RB Dwivedi at some places,
is asked to act as ‘Dean’ for next two years from the date of his
taking the charge are without any required homework of assessing the
performance of the petitioner vis-a-vis other eligible candidates.
2.3 Learned
advocate Mr. Mehta vehemently submitted that the authorities, for no
valid reasons, gave a go-bye to the concept of maintaining of
Ephemeral Roll and then writing C.R. on the basis of that. He
submitted that, in absence of Ephemeral Roll, Confidential Reports
are nothing but a reflection of whimsical assessment of a person by
the reporting officer as well as by the reviewing officer and that is
not permissible under law, more particularly, when it comes to a
matter of conferring an important right like being ‘Dean’ of a
faculty.
3.0 In
view of that, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires
consideration. Hence, Rule.
3.1 Interim
relief in terms of Para 37(E).
3.2 At
the request of learned advocate Mr. Kakkad, it is made clear that in
the event learned advocate Mr. Kakkad is able to put his house in
order and is able to make out a case for vacating of interim relief,
it will be open for him to file a suitable application for the same.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top