India boasts of its three pillars of democracy – The Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. While I was always sure of the failed status of the first two pillars, I had some faith in the judiciary till I had a firsthand experience recently.
Post retirement from the Indian Navy in 2011, having acquiring four post graduate degrees in management and doctorate in Psychology (allied to Organizational Behavior) I decided to join the education field with a noble intention of contributing to the development of future generation. Accordingly, I took up an assignment as Director of one of the Management Institutions affiliated to Nagpur University. I did all that was possible within my means and the willingness of the management, to provide quality education to students.
Almost 8 months after my appointment by the institution, the university constituted a committee of subject experts to hold an interview to regularize my appointment and the committee in all its experience and wisdom, recommended my candidature. The proposal was then submitted to the university for according formal approval to my appointment. However, after three months, the institution was informed of the Vice Chancellor’s decision of not granting approval to my appointment as my PhD is not in Business Management/ Administration.
This was not a straight case as it appears. The Dy. Registrar of the university who was looking after approval of teaching staff of affiliated colleges had once called me with a request to take special care of his son who was studying in my college. As a true teacher, I indeed started taking interest in that boy. He was shy / timid and needed exposure to gain confidence. However, he hardly attended college and out of concern, I called him once and warned him. Apparently, he felt bad and informed his father who in turn sealed my case. Beyond representing once to the Vice Chancellor, the management did not wish to pursue the matter though there was no merit in the argument of the university. Incidentally, there was more than one case within the same university including the Director of the Department of Business Management whose PhD is not in Business Management/Administration.
As a responsible citizen of the country, I first resigned from the post and after making three written representations to the Vice Chancellor, who did not respond, filed a writ petition in the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court in Apr 2012. The case was duly admitted and the university took the same position that my PhD was not in Business Management. When the case was leaning in my favor, the university in a face saving attempt requested the court to include AICTE as a respondent to the case to clarify the stand. AICTE took almost three months to file their response and remained noncommittal stating that they have no jurisdiction in deciding the qualification of faculty even though the appointmentss are made strictly based on the directions issued by the AICTE, which does not specify that the PhD has to be in Business Management/Administration only.
Having met a dead end once again, the honorable Judge questioned the veracity of two other Directors' appointment including the Director of the Department of Business Management of the university who holds PhD in a subject other than Business Management. The malaise having been exposed, the university did not respond to this query for four months and each time the case was adjourned as the respondent did not file a reply to the court’s query. In the meantime, the court administration reallocated cases and mine was listed for hearing in front of a new set of judges and promptly the respondent filed the reply. In a complete ‘U’ turn the university agreed to accord approval if the candidate engages four sessions in a week and remained silent about the query raised by the honorable judge. Incidentally, the requirement of engaging four sessions is applicable to all Principals/Directors as per the University Grants Commission norms.
I and my counsel were now confident that the case will be decided in our favor and the university will be directed to accord approval as and when I apply again. Logically, I even expected the honorable judge to admonish the respondent university for turning down my case arbitrarily. However, in a dramatic twist of events, on the day of final hearing the honorable judge disposed the petition stating that since the petitioner had resigned from the post, any direction now will be academic in nature and hence there is no case at all. This came as a rude shock and any attempt by the counsel to explain, fell on deaf ears.
This gives rise to following questions:-
a. If there was no case, then why the case was admitted in the first place?
b. Why it took 15 months for the learned judges to realize that there was no case?
c. What about the university staff who intentionally turned down approval, forcing me to resign.
d. How could a responsible person continue in the post for 15 months when the university did not grant approval? Won’t the management of the institution sack him?
e. Is this what is justice?
f. Will a common man like me ever go to court after this experience?
g. Does truth prevail in this country?
h. Do the judges deserve the respect they demand?
i. Will I ever aspire to be a sincere teacher in this country?
i. Will I ever aspire to be a sincere teacher in this country?
No comments:
Post a Comment