http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?

pn=5647&yr=2013

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

ORDER 14.01.2013

1 of 4

21-01-2013 10:24

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=5647&yr=2013

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
2 of 4

21-01-2013 10:24

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=5647&yr=2013

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

3 of 4

21-01-2013 10:24

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=5647&yr=2013

W.P.(C) 1443/2012 Page 1 of 3

4 of 4

21-01-2013 10:24