Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4126/2008 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4126 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
======================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
VAGISHDUTTA
SHUKLA
Versus
GUJARAT
AYURVED UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
======================================
Appearance
:
MR NV ANJARIA for
Petitioner.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent Nos.1 - 3.
MR RC
KAKKAD for Respondents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 05/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Learned counsel for the respondent waives service.
2. The
petitioner has invoked Articles 226, 14 and 16 of the Constitution
with the prayers that adverse remarks recorded in his Annual
Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2006-07 be quashed and to
direct the respondent not to deny him appointment on the post of
Dean, Post Graduate Department, by rotation due to be filled in March
2008 only on the ground of adverse entries in the ACRs. The ACR in
question for the year 2006-07 read as under:
You
are not interested in teaching and taking regular classes. Your
attitude has not been found in the interest of the Institute.
Requires to improve administrative capability.
3.
Above remarks are communicated to the petitioner, as Head of
Department of Panchkarma, Institute of Post Graduate Teaching and
Research in Ayurveda at Gujarat Ayurveda University, Jamnagar, by
letter dated 10.10.2007 of office of the Director of the Institute.
Thereafter, in reply to letter dated 21st October 2007 of
the petitioner, the Director replied that the remarks conveyed for
the ACR for the year 2006-07 were observational remarks and there was
no need to provide any reasons/grounds for the same; and that the
petitioner has to submit his reply to the Honourable Vice Chancellor,
the reviewing officer for ACR of Head of the Departments, through the
Director. Thereafter, the Director informed the petitioner by letter
dated 12.12.2007 that reply of the petitioner was considered by the
Honourable Vice Chancellor and explanation given by him was not
found relevant enough ; and hence, the entries made in the ACR for
the year 2006-07 stood as they were.
4. Aforesaid
remarks in the ACR and the decision of the Vice Chancellor confirming
the remarks are under challenge on the grounds that the remarks were
baseless, motivated and vague. It was submitted by learned counsel
Mr.Anjaria that, according to the Rules of the Administrative
Department of respondent no.1 University, adverse entries in the ACRs
were required to be communicated within 30 days and the reporting
officer was required to maintain ephemeral roll. Both these
requirements were admittedly not fulfilled. Then the rules also
require that, if, after several years of confidential reports being
not adverse, adverse remarks were suddenly made in a given year, the
reporting officer has to substantiate such departure by special note
and supporting material. That condition was also not fulfilled and
such violation of the Rules by the respondent could not be denied.
Learned counsel, Mr.Kakkad, appearing for the respondent relied upon
irrelevant material and statements made in the affidavit in reply of
the Registrar of University, to submit that there were many
complaints against the petitioner and that the adverse remarks were
justified.
5. It
was clear from the contentions of rival parties that in recording and
confirming adverse remarks in the ACRs of the petitioner for the year
2006-07 express Rules of the respondent University were clearly
violated, and hence, such adverse remarks could not be sustained.
Accordingly, adverse remarks in the annual confidential report of the
petitioner for the year 2006-07 are hereby quashed.
6. As
regards the second prayer in respect of appointment to the Post of
Dean, it was clear that provisions of Regulation 2 for the
appointment of the Dean left the authorities with the discretion of
considering ACRs as well as performance of the officer. Even
otherwise, the prayer for such appointment was made by way of interim
relief pending hearing and final disposal of the petition and that
prayer, in the nature of things, did not survive, as fairly conceded
by learned counsel, Mr.Anjaria. Accordingly, the petition is allowed
in the aforesaid terms and Rule is made absolute with no order as to
costs.
(D.H.Waghela,
J.)
*malek
Top