7/29/2019 Jan 14 Order
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1443/2012 and CM No.3149/2012 (Directions)
JOSE MELETH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jayant Tripathi and Mr. Abhijit Mittal,
Advs.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. for
Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, CGSC for R-1 and 2.
Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Rakesh Garg, Adv. for R-3.
Mr. Chandrashekhar Singh, Advs. for R-4.
Mr. Maneesh Goyal and Mr. Sajid Chaudhary,
Advs. for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
14.01.2013
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=5647&yr=2013
4 21-01-2013 10:24
7/29/2019 Jan 14 Order
2/4
In pursuance of our order dated 30.11.2012 learned counsel for
the
Indian Law Institute/respondent No.3 has placed before us the
Minutes of
the Executive Committee meeting held on 13.12.2012. The
particular
aspect has been discussed at item No.8. The Committee has opined
that
after perusal of all the relevant documents, the inquiry report
dated
4.4.2012 finding the appointment of Professor S.
Sivakumar/respondent
No.4 was in order and the complaint of the petitioner be
rejected should
be accepted.
We put a specific query to learned senior counsel for
respondent
No.3 that in view thereof we would have to examine the
allegations
made by the petitioner
W.P.(C) 1443/2012 Page 1 of 3
and what would be the answer to the specific aspects dealt with
in our
order dated 21.8.2012.
Learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the
certificates submitted by respondent No.4 along with his
application,
issued by KLA, have not been disowned and have been issued by
the same
person/authority who had issued the subsequent certificates
which cast a
doubt on the experience of respondent No.4.
No doubt the aforesaid is true but the explanation given in
the
subsequent certificate is that respondent No.4 did not join on
1.8.1994
but joined on 1.6.1996. To our mind the date of joining itself
should
not become an aspect of dispute. It has also been stated that
respondent
No.4 did not teach any post graduate course in KLA.
We have put to learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the
aforesaid, in our view, is a serious matter as there may be an
element of
perjury either on behalf of KLA or on behalf of respondent No.4.
We,thus, call upon respondent No.4 to file an affidavit setting out
which is
the date which he joined KLA and as to what courses he taught
and for
which period. The affidavit should specifically state which
post
graduate course did he teach in KLA and when. Respondent No.4
should
categorically state that he worked as a full time Lecturer
teaching post
graduate classes specifically qua the disputed period of
1.8.1994 to
1.6.1996.
The matter does not end at this as such a contradiction is
even
arising qua the claim of respondent No.4 of post graduate level
teaching
at National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (for short
?NUJS?).
The NUJS has disclosed that respondent No.4 did not teach any
post
graduate course in the NUJS while respondent No.4 claimed to
have taught
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=5647&yr=2013
4 21-01-2013 10:24
7/29/2019 Jan 14 Order
3/4
such post graduate course from 20.5.2003 to 19.10.2003. We,
thus,
call upon respondent No.4 to, once again,
W.P.(C) 1443/2012 Page 1 of 3
state on affidavit as to which are the post graduate courses he
taught at
NUJS and for which period.
We are of the view that the matter has to be taken to its
logical
conclusion by coming to an opinion whether respondent No.4
relied upon
incorrect teaching experience or was the teaching experience as
sought to
be propounded by respondent No.4. If the teaching experience
found for
the relevant period to be non-existent then the appointment of
respondent
No.4 cannot stand.
The affidavit be filed within three (3) weeks.
We also consider it appropriate to issue notice to NUJS in view
of
the response to the petitioner under the RTI Act. The notice
should be
accompanied by a copy of our order dated 21.8.2012 and the order
passed
today, dasti as well.
List for directions on 20.2.2013.
Dasti to learned counsel for respondent No.4 under the
signatures
of the Court Master.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
JANUARY 14, 2013 INDERMEET KAUR, J.
b?nesh
http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=5647&yr=2013
4 21-01-2013 10:24
