DR. ASHOK K. KESHARI  Vs INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS.

W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: January 27, 2021

+ W.P.(C) 5765/2020 , CM APPL. 20827/2020

DR. ASHOK K. KESHARI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Randhir Jain, Adv.

Versus

INDIAN I NSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
& ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the followi ng prayers:
“Under the facts and circumstances mentioned
above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to: –
(a) issue appropriate writ, order and/or directions to
the respondents to pay to the Petitioner salary,
emolument in the scale of H.A.G with effect from
1. 7 .2020;
(b) quash and set aside O.M.
No.IITDC/ICON/4(3)/2020/249353 dated
11.08.2020 issued by Respondent no.1and appoint
the Petitioner as Head of Civil Engineering
Department of Respondent no.1;
AND
(c) issue such other, further and consequential
directions that may be deemed fit and proper in the
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 2
interest of justice.”

2. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he
joined IIT Delhi in August 1997 as a Lecturer and bec ame
Professor on Au gust 11, 2008 in the Department of Civil
Engineering. He has been serving the Civil Engineering
Department in IIT for the last 23 years. In the last five years, he
has published 16 papers in the peer reviewed International
Journals and presented 49 paper s in national and international
conferences.
3. That vide notification issued through email dated May 23,
2020 , the respondent No.1 invited application s from eligible
candidate s to be placed in HAG Scale. On June 0 5, 2020
petitioner applied through the institute online portal for the same
i.e., claiming HAG Scale. However , the scale has been denied to
him in a wrongful manner. It is the case of the petitioner and so
contended by Mr. Randhir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to be placed in HAG Scale
with effect from July 01, 2020.
4. According to Mr. Jain, the petitioner vide his email dated
July 17, 2020 sought the reasons from the respondent No.1 for
denying the said scale to him as according to him, the said scale
has been awarded to many faculty members junior to him and
those having less publications.
5. Mr. Jain stated that in response to the petitioner’s email,
the respondent No.1 vide email dated July 17, 2020 conveyed to
the petitioner that on ly Dean or Member of Committee would tell
the process followed while awarding HAG Scale. Mr. Jain has
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 3
also referred to a subsequent email dated July 19, 2020 of the
petitioner to the respondent No.1 for reconsidering its decision
attaching therewith his C V and summary of last five years. In
response to this email, the respondent No.1 stated that they are
following elaborate process of scrutiny and point based system
for selection of HAG Professors and has referred the case of the
petitioner to Mr. Sudipto Mukherjee to check any flaws or issues
with the process followed in case of the petitioner.
6. That apart, it is the submission of Mr. Jain that the
petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner has not
been appointed as the Head of th e Department of the Civil
Engineering. He has drawn my attention to the memorandum
dated August 11, 2020 issued by the respondent No.1 IIT
appointing Heads of various departments. His grievance is
primarily against the appointment of respondent No.2 as H ead of
Department of Civil Engineering in an arbitrary manner while
denying the petitioner his rightful claim to the said position . This
according to Mr. Jain is contrary to the practice prevailed in the
IIT to appoint the Senior most Professor as Head of the
Department.
7. According to Mr. Jain, the appointment being a public
appointment , has to be in terms of criteria to be notified in
advance. Not only this, the procedure has to confirm to legal and
constitutional provisions. It has to qualify and pa ss the test of
being fair and reasonable. However, respondent No.1 has not
framed any rules for considering the Professors for being placed
in HAG Scale nor there are any rules and regulations for
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 4
appointing Heads of Departments. In the absence of rules and
regulations , the process has been rendered arbitrary and
whimsical against the spirit of Art icle 14 of the Constitution of
India.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1
IIT to the writ petition wherein it is stated by Mr. Arjun Mi tra
that insofar as the plea of the petitioner for grant of HAG Scale is
concerned, the same was introduced at the institute as a
consequence of the implementation of the recommendations of
the 6th CPC communicated by the Ministry of Human Resource
Develop ment vide its letter dated August 18, 2009. The relevant
portion of the letter inter alia stipulates that upto a maximum of
40% of the posts of Professors at any given point of time will be
eligible for AGP of Rs.12,000/ – per month after six years’ of
regular service in AGP of Rs.10,500/ – subject to performance
evaluation based on research publications, Ph. D supervision,
teaching and consultancy service etc . The above guidelines were
approved by the Board of Governors of the IIT on June 30, 2010
and Dece mber 06, 2010 being the highest rule making body. The
guidelines were further considered by the Board on October 31,
2019, when it discussed a proposal received from the Dean
(Faculty), for revising the HAG guidelines and a method of
empanelment to addres s the case of Professors who meet the
benchmark as per Council norms, but could not be placed in the
scale due to unavailability of slots. The said proposal was
approved by the Board in this meeting.
9. According to Mr. Mitra, the above decision of the B oard
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 5
of Governors indicates that marks are awarded for each activity,
in the context of the candidates ’ area of expertise. Moreover,
there is no vested right which accrues in favour of any faculty
member to get the HAG Scale, since it is available only to 40%
of the Professors and is also subject to performance evaluation.
10. He stated that all the applications that are received from
Professors for being placed in HAG scale are subjected to three
peer reviews followed by the decision of a Committee of HAG
Professors comprising of 20 members, such that the names and
identities of the candidates are represented only by a number and
are thus kept concealed from the Committee. The re
commendations of the Committee are then considered for
approval by the Bo ard of Governors and the decision thus taken
is then implemented.
11. According to Mr. Mitra, the same process was also
followed in the case of the petitioner. In other words, the
application of the petitioner, along with that of all other
applicants along with the evaluation of the three -member peer
review Committee was considered by the Assessment Committee
in its meeting held on July, 02 2020. The recommendations of the
Assessment Committee were approved by the Chairman, Board
of Governors on behalf of the Board of Governors. The same was
later placed on August 13, 2020 before the Board of Governors
for ratification . He stated that as the petitioner’s name was not
recommended by the Committee constituted for the purpose. The
non-inclusion was clearly done in an impartial manne r.
12. In substance, he stated that the recommendation of the
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 6
Committee being based on the performance of the candidate, (i)
are objective, (ii) are on the basis of guidelines laid down by the
Board of Governors and (iii) is purely in terms of merit. That
additionally, the petitioner failed to get the requisite minimum 13
marks in the assessment marks in the peer evaluation, which was
considered by the Assessment Committee, whose
recommendations were approved by the Chairman, Board of
Governors; the petitioner got 11.3 marks.
13. Insofar as the appointment to the post of Head of
Department is concerned, it was the submission of Mr. Mitra that
the non -appointment to the post of Head of Department is also
justified as the position o f the Head of the Department is
provided in Statu te 20 of the Institute Statu tes, which reads as
under:
“20. Head of the Department
(1) Each Department shall be placed in charge of
a Head who shall be selected by the Director from
amongst the Professors, A ssociate Professors and
Assistant Professors. Provided that when in the
opinion of the Director the situation so demands,
the Director may himself take temporary charge
of a Department or place under the charge of the
Deputy Director or a Professor from
another Department for a period not exceeding
six months.
(2) The Head of Department shall be
responsible for the entire working of the
Department, such to the general control of the
Director.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Head of the
Department to see tha t the decisions of the
authorities of the Institute and of the Director are
faithfully carried out. He shall perform such
other duties as may be assigned to him by the
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 7
Director.

14. The Statu te governs the appointment of Head of
Department. Moreover, there is no rule which requires the Head
of Department to be appointed on the basis of seniority only . The
Director has the discretion to appoint any person, whether a
Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor as the Head
of Department. In fact , the Director may him self / herself act as
the Head of Department if required. Seniority is one of the
consideration . The performance of the candidate and the
outcome of the Director’s deliberations with faculty members in
the academic unit at the time of appointment are also considered.
There are various instances wherein the person appointed as the
Head of Department , are not senior. The Head of Department is
only temporary assignment, a term of which is limited to three
years and carries no financial benefits.
15. That apart, the plea of the petitioner that he is senior to
respondent No.2 is incorrect as the respondent No.2 is in a higher
pay scale. Further, a minor penalty of “Censure ” was imposed
on the petitioner vide order dated March 16, 2010, though this
penalty is under challenge before this Court in W.P. (C)
3821/2010, there is no stay against the said order. Further, the
institute had passed an administrative order on June 27, 2008 in
terms of which the petitioner was debarred from holding any
administrative position and from teaching any female students.
The order is well within the knowledge of the petitioner .
Moreover, the institute has reviewed this order from time to time .
The petitioner was also conveyed order dated August 01, 2017 by
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 8
which the order dated June 27, 2008 has been continued . The
petitioner had not challenged the order dated August 01, 2017.
Further the institute has decided to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner, for which the Board of
Governors, i n its decision dated March 20, 2020 has directed that
a charge sheet be framed against the petitioner.
16. Therefore, according to Mr. Mitra, there are justifiable
reasons to deny the HAG Scale to the petitioner and also not
appointing him as the Head of the Department in Civil
Engineering Department . Mr. Mitra seeks the dismissal of the
writ petition.
17. In support of his submission, Mr. Mitra has relied upon
the following judgments:
(i) MI Hussain v . N Singh, ILR (2005) II Del 890 ;
(ii) National Instit ute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences
v. Dr. K Kalyan Raman, (1992) Supp 2 SCC 481 ; and
(iii) Dalpat Abhasaheb Solunke v . Dr. BS Mahajan, (1990) 1
SCC 305.
18. Mr. Jain in his rejoinder submission s would submit on the
issue of imposition of penalty of “Censure ” that certain quarters,
feeling jealous of the petitioner and not able to match him in
qualitative service, hatched a conspiracy to malign his name and
got a false and mischievous complaint made by two Research
Scholars, imputing impure motives to the petitioner . No incident
as alleged to have happened on January 06, 2007 and January 21,
2007. Two letters were written by the Research Scholars for
change of the petitioner as their Supervisor five months after the
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 9
alleged incident of misbehavior. Strangely enough, both these
letters bear the same date. Hence, no reliance can be placed on
the penalty of “Censure ” for denying him the Head of
Department position.
19. That apart, on June 04, 2008 the petitioner was
interviewed for the post of Professo r and was found successful to
be given professor’s grade which result was kept in the sealed
cover, and was given effect to on March 16, 2010 , w.e.f. August
11, 2008. The fact that the petitioner has been made Professor
and continuing on the same position is a sufficient ground for the
respondent No.1 to make the petitioner Head of the Department.
20. He submitted that even, the Censure has not been
imposed on the allegations made by two Research Candidates but
with regard to remark that came to be made d uring inquiry
proceedings. The same is untenable as no charge sheet was
issued for the same and the same is under challenge in the Writ
petition No.3821/2010.
21. On the question of HAG, Mr. Jain submitted that the
whole process is based on assessment o f the candidates made by
three Experts from the discipline of the candidate which is clear
from the perusal of the score assigned to various candidates.
There is no consideration or deliberation or any judgment made
by the Assessment Committee. Even the E xperts like Professor
Ashok Gupta and Professor Manoj Datta, the two Experts out of
three were acting to the prejudice of the petitioner and
deliberately acted to spoil his service career and thus disqualified
to be his assessors. In this regard, Mr. Jain has stated that
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 10
Professor Ashok Gupta on October 24, 2007 initiated move to
penalize the petitioner and he recommended the major penalty on
him. He also move d to debar him from supervising female
researchers. Similarly, Professor Manoj Datta raked up the issue
of order dated June 27, 2008.
22. Mr. Jain also contested the issuance of a fresh charge
sheet in terms of the decision of the Board of Governors dated
march 20, 2020 as the same is for extraneous reasons. Mr. Jain
has relied upon the following jud gments:
(i) B.V. Sivai ah & Ors. v. K. Addanki & Ors., (1998) 6 SCC
720;
(ii) J.D. Srivastava v. State of M.P. & Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 8;
(iii) Renu Bakshi v. High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C)
6741/2014, decided on January 11, 2018; and
(iv) Anil Kumar Sharma v. I. I.T. Roorkee, W.P.(S.B.)C.
No.154/2019 , decided by the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Na inital.
23. Having heard the learned cou nsel for the parties, the
issue(s) which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is
entitled to the Scale of HAG w.e.f July 1, 2020 and also be
appointed as Head of the Department, Department of Civil
Engineering in the respondent no.1 / Institute. The plea of Mr.
Randhir Jain was that there are no rules / regulations / guidelines
for the grant of HAG Scale / HOD. This s ubmission of Mr. Jain
is not tenable, inasmuch as in terms of Annexure R -1/1, which is
an OM issued by the Ministr y of Human Resource Development,
as adopted by the respondent No.1, the following has been
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 11
stipulated :-
“(iv) Professors
(l) To be appointe d in PB -4 (Rs.37400 -67000) with AGP
Rs.l0 ,000/ – p.m. for direct recruits, minimum pay in the
Pay Band to be fixed at R s.48,000/ –
(2) For appointment as Professor, one should have a
Ph.D with first class or equivalent with a very good
academic record and a minimum of l0 years’ experience.
(3) Up to a maximum 40% of the posts of Professors at
any given point of time will be eligible for AGP of R s.
12000/ – p.m. after 6 years’ of regular service in AGP of
Rs.10500/ – p.m. sub ject to performance evaluation bas ed
on res earch publications, Ph.D supervision, teaching
and consultancy services etc. ”
24. The aforesaid decision has undergone a change whereby
the respondent no.1 has decided to fix HAG Scale as Rs.67,000 –
Rs. 79,000/ – in lieu of AGP of Rs. 12,000/ -. That apart, the IIT
has adopted the foll owing procedure for grant of HAG Scale:
“1. All the Professors with experience of 6 years or more
as on 18.08.2009 be invited to submit an Appraisal Form
designed for this purpose. The Assessment Committee will
evaluate the application as per the criteria recommended
by the inter -IIT Committee constituted by the Directors.
2. At present there are no Prof essors in the new HAG
scale of Rs.67,000 -79,000/ – and technically all the current
Professors having been Professors for more th an 6 years
as on 18.08.2009 are thus themselves candidates for this
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 12
movement. For purposes of first assessment, a Committee
consisting of five eminent retired IIT Delhi Professors
with Director as its Chairman be constituted. The
committee members w ill be treated at par with the
selection committee members for payment of honorarium
and T A/DA.
3. The Assessment Committee will be constituted by the
Director in consultation with the Chairman, BOG and
based on the availability of concerned persons as pe r the
selection schedule.
4. Based on the experience, the process may be fine
tuned/modified for subsequent years. In case of any major
changes, the approval of the Chairman, BOG would be
sought.
5. The movement will be considered effective from
18.08.200 9 and subsequently from 1st July of every year.
Existing professors will be evaluated on that basis. ”

25. Thereafter on October 31, 2019, the Board of Governors
of the IIT on a proposal received from the Dean (Faculty) to
revise the HAG guidelines and met hod of empanelment,
approved the following guidelines:
“1. Faculty members with a minimum of 6 years of
experience as Professor as on July 1 in every year are
eligible for the movement to HAG pay scale.
2. Performance assessment of the eligible candidates will
be carried out by a Selection Committee appointed by the
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 13
Director with approval of the BoG.
3. The performance of each candidate will be assessed
based on activity since becoming a Professor, against the
activities listed in the table below, in contex t of the area
of expertise of the candidate.
Activity Group Inactive Active Excellent Outstandin g
Teaching A 0 1 3 5
Research 0 1 3 5
Sponsored
Research B* 1 3 5
Extension 1 3 5
Administration 1 3
* In Group B, only 2 best out of 3 activities will be
considered.
4. This table will be used to award an overall
performance score to each applicant. Only applicants
with overall score greater than or equal to 13 will be
eligible to be empanelled for movement to HAG pay scale
which implies that in or der to be empanelled in the HAG
pay scale, the applicant necessarily be ‘Outstanding’ in at
least one of the four activities.
5. The newly empanelled applicants are to be appended to
the existing list.
6. Movement to the HAG pay scale will be as per
avail able slots, as evaluated for 1st July of the year.
7. The empanelment list shall be carried over.
8. As of today, i.e. 22.10.2019, the empanelment list is a
null list. ”
26. From the above, it is noted that Professor with six years
of experience as of July in every year is eligible for grant of HAG
Pay Scale. The performance assessment of all eligible candidates
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 14
is carried out by Selection Committee appointed by the Director
with the approval of the Board of Governors. The performance is
assessed based on the activity since becoming a Professor. That
apart, only applicants with overall score greater than or equal to
13 will be eligible for movement to HAG Scale and the same
shall be as per available slots as evaluated for July 1 of the year.
27. After t he 7th CPC, the HAG Scale has been revised to
Pay-Level 15 in the Scale of Rs.1,82,000 – Rs.2,24,100/ -. It is the
case of respondent no.1 that the Board of Governors constituted a
Committee consisting of 20 members with Prof. Sudipto
Mukherjee, Dean (Facul ty) as its member Convenor. The
Committee based on the P eer review carried out by three
Professors, wherein the petitioner has secured average marks of
11.3, i.e., less than 13, found the petitioner not fit for being
granted the HAG Scale. The Committee had recommended two
Professors for grant of HAG Scale in the Civil Engineering
Department being Prof. Bhabu Ram Chahar and Prof. Babu J.
Alappat. The Committee has also empaneled Prof. Arvind Kumar
Nema for grant of the said Scale. I may state here that o ut of the
three assessors who have assessed the work of the petitioner two
have given 10 marks each as against 14 by the third assessor , Mr.
Jain during his submissions ha s alleged malafide against these
two assessors. I may state here that it is the case of the respondent
no.1 that neither the identity of the assessors nor of the candidate
assessed is known either to the assessors / c andidate . In other
words, the name of the candidate so assessed is not known to the
assessors. The marks / points are giv en / awarded by the
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 15
assessors without knowin g the identity of the candidate . So, the
allegation of Mr. Jain of malafide against two assessors shall be
unsustainable , as the identity of the petitioner is not known to the
two assessors. Further , the petitio ner has not made the said
Professors / assessors parties in this petition. So , the marks of
11.3 secured by the petitioner as against the minimum 13 marks
is a sufficient ground for finding the petitioner not fit for being
given the HAG Scale in view of ( 4) of Para 25 above . That apart,
two Professors in the Civil Engineering Department, who have
been recommended for grant of HAG Scale against 40% quota
and also one Professor empane lled for grant of HAG Scale have
not been made parties . Unless they are m ade parties, no relief
can be given to the petitioner as the quota being fixed at 40%,
relief can be given to the petitioner only after dislodging one of
the candidates recommended / empaneled . Even on merit, I find
that representation of the petitioner w as placed before Dr.
Sudipto Mukherjee, being Convenor of the Committee. Mr.
Mukherjee has in his two communications on the representation
made by the petitioner has stated as under:
“Dear Prof. Keshri,
Your submission to the Director regarding elevation to
HAG has been referred to the office of Dean Faculty.
As you might know, the assessment for HAG is done by
three independent peer reviews of the submission,
followed by a decision in a 20 -member committee with
the candidate names suppressed.
Review of your submission indicates the following:
1. Thirteen journal papers ar e claimed between
2014 -2015 to 2018 -2019 sessions as academic
publications. The publication entitled “D. L.
Parmar and A. K. K eshari, Wastcload allocation
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 16
using wastewater treatment and flow
Augmentation ”, was published in Environmental
Modeling and Assessment on 15/08/2013 but has
been shown as published between July 2014 and
June 2015.
2. In nine instances, journals where your papers
have been published do not have any Impact
Factor Ind ex assigned to them (based on 2019 data
from the Librarian).
3. Four papers claimed to be journal publications
were found to be conference proceedings and not
archival, as listed by the publisher.
These ar e misrepresentation of facts and do not
indicate l evel of academic research expected of a
faculty moving to HAG level.
Review of your teaching feedback has instances
where it is stated that you ar e habitually late for
your classes, especially CVL731.
In light of the observations above and overall
performa nce as a professor during the period
under consideration, the committee was in order in
putting aside claims to strong academic credentials
and credibility, which you have asserted in
subsequent notes to the Director.
Regards,
S. Mukherjee
Office of Dean ( Faculty)
IIT Delhi ”

“Dear Prof. Keshri,
I had been directed to look into discrepancies if any in the
case of assessment of your HAG application. I did not
hence set out to address your queries. I hope you
understand that we are treating your query with
discretion and have not made available any of the
information supplied by you and the discrepancy noted to
others. Your demands for score of others or list of their
accomplishment is not admissible for the same reason.
The Board resolution in the matter of HAG appointment
is however attached for your perusal.
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 17
The cumulative assessment indices were not known to the
Director, members of the committee or me till the meeting
started and identity was number coded. Your accusation
of bias is unfounded as the decis ions were taken by the
committee without knowing identities.
The annual appraisals for the last 5 years form an
integral part of the evaluation process, as was indicated
in the call for applications. It was hence very presumptive
on your part to presume th at we ”devoted” one month
time to “dig out the appraisal forms”. It was available to
the committee when it met. I only reviewed the elements
that could have been assessed wrongly by the panel.
The paper referred to in point 1 is shown as published in
2013 in the Elsevier site, and the print issue was in
February 2014. Both dates are outside the range of the
reporting period and hence misreported. You may please
refrain from persistent attempts to misinform us.
At point 3, the journal site lists the class your
publications appear in as “conference proceedings”. The
same web -page lists another set of issues as “archivaJ”. It
is expected that you differentiate between the two sets.
You may also not ascribe the blame to your students for
publishing in conferen ces and take credit for them in your
annual assessment.
At point 5, I stand corrected.
I hope you realise that points at 2, 4 and 6 have no facts
which have been contested for me to respond to. A copy
of these clarifications is being marked to the Director .
Regards and wish you a productive academic year,
S. Mukherjee
Dean (Faculty)
IIT Delhi ”

28. So, I find there is justification in the conclusion of the
Assessment Committee in finding the petitioner not fit for grant
of HAG Scale. It is a settled law th at the judicial review in the
matters of assessment / promotion is very limited inasmuch as the
Court will not sit as an Appellate Authority over the assessment
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 18
carried out by the Assessment Committee on the relative merit of
the candidat es and come to a d ifferent conclusion. [Reference
Dalpat Aba Saheb Solunke and ors. vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and
Ors. 1990 (1) SCC 305 ]. Hence the challenge of the petitioner
with regard to non -grant of HAG Scale is clearly unsustainable
and liable to be rejected.
29. Even t he submission of Mr. Jain that there are no rules /
regulations / guidelines for grant of HOD is also unsustainable.
Mr. Mitra has drawn my attention to statute 20 (page 7 of the
short affidavit), which is reproduced as under, clearly stipulates
that an HOD can be made from amongst Professors, Associate
Professors, Assistant Professors and even a Director can also take
temporary charge of HOD.
“20. Head of the Department
(1) Each Department shall be placed in charge of a Head
who shall be selected by the Director from amongst the
Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant
Professors. Provided that when in the opinion of the
Director the situation so demands, the Director may
himself take temporary charge of a Department or place
under the charge of th e Deputy Director or a Professor
from another Department for a period not exceeding six
months.
(2) The Head of Department shall be responsible for
the entire working of the Department, subject to the
general control of the Director.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Head of the Department
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 19
to see that the decision of the authorities of the Institute
and of the Director are faithfully carried out. He shall
perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by
the Director.”
30. The plea of Mr. Jain that t he petitioner being the senior –
most was required to be appointed as HOD is also unsustainable.
This I say so, (i) keeping in view Statute 20, which I have
reproduced above . It is not necessary that a senior -most
Professor needs to be appointed as HOD, ev en an Associate
Professor / Assistant Professor, who is not senior to Professor can
also be appointed as HOD; (ii) the petitioner is not the senior –
most Professor as alleged by Mr. Jain as it is the case of
respondent no.1 that respondent no.2 who has been made HOD is
drawing higher scale in HAG; (iii) it is the case of respondent
no.1 that vide order dated June 27, 2008, petitioner was deb arred
from holding any administrative assignment and from teaching
any female students. This order has been reviewed f rom time to
time and vide order dated August 1, 2017, the order dated June
27, 2008 was continued. Concedingly the petitioner has not
challenged the said orders; ( iv) the petitioner was also imposed a
penalty of Censure, which is under challenge before th is Court;
(v) that recently on March, 2020, it has been decided by the
Board of Governors that a charge sheet be issued to the petitioner
for certain omissions and commissions. If that be so, even the
denial of HOD to the petitioner is justified. That ap art, the
petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right, the position of Head
of the Department which is only a temporary assignment for three
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 20
years without any monetary benefits.
31. In his rejoinder submissions, Mr. Jain has submitted that
imposition of penalty of censure is totally untenable as no such
incident has taken place. In any case, censure, I have been
informed is the subject matter of writ petition No. 3821/2010
filed before this Court. A plea was raised by Mr. Jain that, the
censure penalty has been passed in the year 2010, the same
cannot have the effect now. The plea is appealing but the denial
of H OD to the petitioner is not on that consideration alone. I
have already reproduced the reasons, cumulatively, resulted in
the denial of H OD to the petitioner. Even the plea of the
petitioner that the petitioner having got promotion with
retrospective effect, on the same date when “ censure” was
imposed, and hence could not be taken into consideration , is also
unsustainable as I have already held , that, there were other factors
which resulted in the petitioner not getting the position of H OD.
32. The reliance placed by Mr. Jain on the judgment of B.V.
Sivai ah & Ors. (supra), J.D. Srivastava (supra), Renu Bakshi
(supra) in support of his contention that (i) parameter of seniority
has no relevance in case of candidates appointed on the same date
and having equal length of service and that in such case only
comparative merit is relevant; (ii) decision is arbitrary where
reliance placed on s tale entrie s though promotion given
subsequently; (iii) the order of censure cannot result in indefinite
black mark on the service record, it only had an finite duration.
The judgments have been considered by me and have no
applicability, in view of my conclusion ab ove, in the facts of this
2021:DHC:294
W.P.(C) 5765/2020 Page 21
case.
33. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any
merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.
CM APPL. 20827/2020 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

JANUARY 27 , 2021/aky/jg
2021:DHC:294