Seniority in University Appointments: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on HOD Nomination
The Supreme Court, in Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P. vs. Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. & Ors., delivered a significant judgment regarding the appointment of the Head of Department (HOD) in universities. The ruling clarified whether a professor who had once declined an HOD position could later be reconsidered for nomination based on seniority and rotation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute in the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Dr. Jagathy Raj, a senior professor, had initially declined to be appointed as HOD in 2017 due to ongoing research commitments. Consequently, the next eligible professor, Dr. Mavoothu D., was appointed. However, when the tenure of Dr. Mavoothu D. ended in 2020, Dr. Jagathy Raj expressed his willingness to assume the role. The university considered his request and nominated him as HOD based on his seniority.
Dr. Rajitha Kumar, a junior professor, challenged this decision, arguing that once a professor declines an HOD position, they forfeit the right to be considered in the future. The High Court Division Bench ruled in her favor, setting aside the university’s decision and directing that she be appointed as HOD. Dr. Jagathy Raj appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments (Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P.)
- The appointment of HOD is governed by Statute 18 of the university, which mandates selection based on seniority and rotation.
- His initial refusal in 2017 was temporary, based on academic commitments, and should not permanently bar him from future consideration.
- There were precedents where professors who had earlier declined the post were later appointed when the next rotational term arose.
- The university’s policy prioritizes academic and research work and allows senior professors to take up administrative roles when suitable.
- The High Court’s decision ignored the established practice of considering senior professors first.
Respondent’s Arguments (Dr. Rajitha Kumar S.)
- Once a professor declines an HOD position, they should not be reconsidered in subsequent rotations.
- The principle of rotation means that once a professor skips their turn, the opportunity should be given to the next in line.
- Allowing Dr. Jagathy Raj to be considered after declining in 2017 deprived her of her rightful opportunity in 2020.
- The university’s decision was arbitrary and against the spirit of Statute 18.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
1. Interpretation of Statute 18
The Supreme Court carefully analyzed Statute 18, which governs HOD appointments:
“The Syndicate shall nominate a teacher not below the rank of an Associate Professor with Ph.D. or an equivalent post as prescribed by UGC regulations according to seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years.”
The Court noted that while the statute allows a professor to decline an appointment, it does not explicitly bar them from being reconsidered in future rotations.
2. Seniority Must Be Respected
The Court reaffirmed the principle that seniority is a crucial factor in academic institutions:
“The university gives paramount importance to academic and research work and does not want to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior professor when his turn arises.”
3. Past Precedents in the University
The Court noted that the university had previously allowed professors to take up the HOD position after initially declining. Two specific cases were cited:
- Dr. M.K. Jayaraj initially declined the HOD post in 2016 but was later appointed in 2019 when the rotation came up again.
- Mrs. Mariamma Chacko had similarly declined the post in 2016 but was later appointed in 2017.
“The practice followed by the university in such appointments for a long time, if not contrary to law, should be given its due precedence.”
4. High Court’s Error in Interpretation
The Supreme Court found that the High Court misinterpreted Statute 18 by concluding that once a professor declines the post, they forfeit the right forever. The Court held:
“There is no provision under Statute 18 that permanently disqualifies a professor from being considered in the next rotational term.”
Final Judgment
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court ruled:
- The Division Bench’s judgment was quashed and set aside.
- The university’s decision to appoint Dr. Jagathy Raj as HOD was upheld.
- Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. would have the opportunity to be considered in the next rotational term.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling has significant implications for academic institutions:
- Clarifies the interpretation of rotational seniority: Professors who initially decline an HOD post can still be considered in future rotations.
- Ensures fairness in university appointments: Prevents permanent disqualification based on a temporary refusal.
- Affirms the importance of seniority: Academic institutions must prioritize seniority in leadership roles.
- Sets a precedent for other universities: Institutions following similar statutes can now ensure fair application of rotational seniority.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that established university practices should be respected unless they violate statutory provisions. This ruling provides clarity and fairness in academic leadership appointments.
Petitioner Name: Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P..Respondent Name: Dr. Rajitha Kumar S. & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka.Place Of Incident: Cochin, Kerala.Judgment Date: 07-02-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: dr.-jagathy-raj-v.p.-vs-dr.-rajitha-kumar-s.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-02-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
