Delhi High Court Upholds Appointment of Chemistry Department Head, Emphasizing Valid Reasons Over Seniority

Judgement Given On : 09/12/2021

In a notable judgment dated December 9, 2021, in the case of RKS v University of Delhi and Ors., the Delhi High Court ruled that the appointment of a junior professor as the Head of Department (HOD) for the Chemistry department at the University of Delhi, bypassing seniority, did not prejudice the alleged harasser. This decision was based on valid and justifiable reasons, even in light of a prior warning issued to the alleged harasser for misconduct.

The case originated from a sexual harassment complaint filed against several professors, including the petitioner, who were members of an Interview Committee at the University of Delhi. Subsequently, an Internal Committee (IC) was constituted to investigate the complaint. The IC, however, found no evidence against the petitioner and exonerated him on June 15, 2018.

Two years later, an Executive Council (EC) was established, recommending through an October 1, 2021, notification that the petitioner receive a warning for his previous misconduct and be prohibited from participating in interviews involving the complainant to ensure fairness.

Following this, discussions arose regarding the appointment of the HOD for the Chemistry department. The Vice-Chancellor appointed another professor, Respondent No. 3, to the position.

The petitioner contested this appointment, asserting that as the senior-most professor in the University, he was entitled to the role of HOD for the Chemistry department. Consequently, he filed the present writ petition.

Key Issue that came up was whether the central question before the court was whether the petitioner was eligible for the position of HOD for the Chemistry department at the University, given the circumstances.

Legal Arguments:

Arguments for the Petitioner:

  • The petitioner’s counsel argued that the warning issued by the University did not constitute a penalty under the Conduct Rules. Therefore, the University had no grounds to restrict the petitioner’s eligibility for the HOD position. Citing the case of J.P. Shrivastava v. University of Delhi, it was contended that the concept of seniority was vital and could not be disregarded when appointing an HOD. Since the petitioner had not faced any form of penalty, he should be considered an eligible candidate for the post.

Arguments for the University:

  • In Prof. Sharda Sharma v. University of Delhi, the court held that the University had the discretion to overlook seniority when appointing an HOD if valid and justifiable reasons were provided. Additionally, as per Ordinance XXIII of the University, it was not mandatory to appoint only the senior-most professor as the HOD.
  • Referring to the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif and others, the University’s counsel argued that no writ could be issued in the absence of an enforceable legal right. Since the petitioner lacked such a right, the petition should not be entertained.

Arguments for Respondent No. 3:

  • Counsel for Respondent No. 3 contended that the appointment was justified, given the warning issued to the petitioner. This warning should disqualify the petitioner from consideration for the HOD position.

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner had accepted the EC’s recommendation dated October 1, 2021, without challenging it in court. Therefore, there was no need to remand the matter back to the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

The court concurred, in line with the legal principles established in J.P. Shrivastava v. University of Delhi, that Ordinance XXII of the University explicitly granted the Vice-Chancellor the authority to appoint any professor as an HOD, even if it meant bypassing seniority, provided valid and justifiable reasons existed. The court emphasized that an HOD’s role involved various activities, including interactions with students and teachers, necessitating a blemish-free record.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the judgments cited by the petitioner’s counsel regarding whether a warning amounted to punishment were irrelevant in this context. Those judgments pertained to promotion, which involved higher status and remuneration, unlike the HOD position, which was temporary and did not entail additional compensation. Therefore, the petitioner was not prejudiced by being denied the HOD position.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as the HOD for the Chemistry department.