Uttarakhand High Court Condemns University HOD for Malicious Conduct in Guest Faculty Case
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has strongly criticized the head of the law department at Soban Singh Jeena University in Almora for allegedly refusing to re-engage a petitioner as a guest faculty member. The court described the actions as not only discriminatory but also malicious and vindictive, highlighting a serious breach of academic ethics and legal standards.
Court Bench and Petition Details
A bench comprising Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay heard the petition filed by Priyanka, a guest faculty member who had served at the institution for several years. The petitioner challenged the university's decision to terminate her engagement, which she argued was unjust and targeted. The high court found that she had been singled out unfairly, noting that this was not a routine service matter but an instance of deliberate misconduct by the departmental head.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner revealed that she had been a witness before the internal complaints committee in a complaint against the HOD. Despite the committee issuing an adverse report against the official, the vice-chancellor failed to take any action, a point that the court emphasized in its proceedings. This inaction raised concerns about governance and accountability within the university.
Legal Principles and Court Directives
On December 11, the court ruled on a key legal principle: a temporary worker cannot be replaced by another temporary worker, nor can a guest lecturer be substituted with another guest lecturer. Based on this, the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to resume her duties as a guest lecturer in the law department under the original terms and conditions. The court stressed that this directive was essential to uphold fairness and prevent arbitrary decisions.
Attempts to Bypass Court Orders
The court expressed deep concern over repeated attempts to circumvent its earlier directions. During a hearing on Monday, it observed that despite multiple orders, the HOD tried to evade compliance by first preventing the petitioner from resuming duties and later withholding her stipend and emoluments. The court dismissed these actions as based on self-manufactured grounds, such as claims of irregular attendance, which were deemed invalid.
University's Response and Future Steps
Counsel for the university, CS Rawat, requested two days to obtain instructions regarding the status of the inquiry against the HOD. He assured the court that all previous orders would be complied with promptly. The court has mandated strict adherence to its rulings to ensure justice and prevent further delays.
This case underscores the importance of protecting the rights of temporary academic staff and maintaining integrity in educational institutions. The Uttarakhand High Court's intervention serves as a reminder that legal frameworks must be respected to avoid discriminatory practices.
