Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17819 (GAU)

SAMIRA BEHERA v. ASSAM UNIVERSITY AND 9 ORS.

WP(C)/5735/2018 · 2025-07-22

N Unni Krishnan Nair

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/28 GAHC010183382018 2025:GAU-AS:9391 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5735/2018 SAMIRA BEHERA S/O. LT. NARAHARI BEHERA, R/O. S-4, SANJEEVANI, RANGIR KHARI, P.O. RANGIR KHARI, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS ASSAM UNIVERSITY AND 9 ORS. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, SILCHAR-788011, ASSAM. 2:EXECUTIVE COUNCIL REP. BY VICE-CHANCELLOR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM. 3:VICE-CHANCHELLOR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM. 4:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM. 5:MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN Page No.# 2/28 NEW MEHRAULI ROAD NEW DELHI-110016. 6:UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110001. 7:DEAN SCHOOL OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM. 8:DR. SANJIB SENGUPTA SUPERVISOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPTT. OF MATHEMATICS ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM. 9:DIBYENDU SAHA RESEARCH SCHOLAR DEPTT. OF MATHEMATICS ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM. 10:DR. KARABI DUTTA CHOUDHURY HEAD OF DEPTT. MATHEMATICS ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 DIST. CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S S DEY, MR. A ROY,MR. M NATH,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE,MR. D J KAPIL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ASSAM UNIVERSITY, ASSTT.S.G.I.,MR. D CHAKRABARTY Page No.# 3/28 (R9, R10),MR. A PARVEZ (R8),MR. M DUTTA (R8),MR D GOGOI (R8) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date: 23.07.2025 Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Assam University, representing the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 and Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8; Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 9 & 10. However, none has entered appearance for the respondent no. 5 & 6. 2. The petitioner, in the present proceeding by way of instituting the present proceeding, has prayed for the following reliefs: - “(i) setting aside and quashing the Minutes of 121st Emergent Meeting of the Executive Council of the Assam University held on 12.07.2018, (Annexure -31); (ii) setting aside and quashing the Resolution No. EC:121:07-18:01 under Item No.1 adopted by the Executive Council in its 121st Emergent Meeting of the Executive Council held on 12.07.2018 (Annexure - 31); (iii) setting aside and quashing the order dated 01.08.2018 contained under No. 103/108/1998-Pers/15691-96 issued by the Respondent No. 4 placing the Petitioner on long leave (Annexure-33); (iv) setting aside and quashing the order dated 31.07.2018 contained under No. 102/4/1998- Estt/15602-62 issued by Respondent No. 4 appointing the Respondent No. 10 as Head of the Department of Mathematics (Annexure- 32); Page No.# 4/28 (v) allowing the Petitioner to continue as Head of Department of Mathematics, Assam University: (vi) directing the Respondent No. 3 to initiate appropriate proceeding/enquiry against the Respondent Nos. 4, 8 and 9 in respect of availing of INSPIRE Fellowship by the Respondent No. 9 for the period 11.03.2016 to 08.03.2017.” 3. The respondent no. 9, herein, had applied to the Department of Science & Technology in the year 2015 for being considered for availing “INNOVATION IN SCIENCE PURSUIT FOR INSPIRED RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP” (herein after referred to as INSPIRE Fellowship) for research work in Mathematics & Statistics. The respondent no. 9, for the purpose, had given names of three universities including the Assam University along with the names of three Supervisors. The respondent no. 9 was provisionally shortlisted for the said Fellowship and the matter was communicated to him by the competent authority vide a communication dated 19.10.2015. In the said communication, it was provided that his selection for the Fellowship will be subject to his gaining admission into a Doctoral (Ph.D.) programme in a recognized university. The Ph.D. admission letter was one of the documents required to be submitted for his final selection under the INSPIRE Fellowship programme. 4. The respondent no. 9, thereafter, on 11.01.2016, took admission into the Integrated Pre-Ph.D. (IPP) course in the Department of Mathematics. Having taken the said admission, the respondent no. 9 vide communication dated 19.01.2016, approached the Registrar of the University, inter alia, contending therein, that he was an IPP student and had applied for INSPIRE Fellowship and, for the purpose, he is in need of an endorsement in his application form. As the Head of the Department is also required to make an endorsement in the said form, the same was produced by the respondent no. 9 before the petitioner. The petitioner, noticing that the form had the endorsement of the Registrar of the University as well as that of the respondent no. 8, as the Research Supervisor, the petitioner made his endorsement on the said form, by noting therein that the respondent no. 9 had taken admission into IPP programme w.e.f. 04.01.2016. The said endorsement Page No.# 5/28 was made by the petitioner on 19.01.2016. It is to be noted that the respondent no. 6 had appeared in the final IPP course work examination in the month of May, 2016 and had cleared the same. 5. The Research Supervisor of the petitioner i.e., the respondent no. 8 herein had made an endorsement in the said form of the respondent no. 9, to the effect that the respondent no. 9 was pursuing a doctoral programme since 11.06.2016 in the University under his supervision. On conclusion of the documentation process and endorsements as mandated received, the form being forwarded to it, the competent authority of the Ministry of Science and Technology, vide communication dated 11.03.2016, released the benefits under the INSPIRE Fellowship to the respondent no. 9. The respondent no. 9 thereafter, submitted an application on 02.08.2017 to the respondent no. 2 i.e., the Vice- Chancellor of the University, inter alia, contending therein that he was granted INSPIRE Fellowship effective from 11.03.2016; and had also drawn the Fellowship amount for a period of 10 months i.e., from 10.03.2016 to 10.01.2017, however, he was prevented from withdrawing the further installments on account of the fact that the claim form involved, on being forwarded to the HOD, Department of Mathematics i.e., the petitioner herein, on 11.03.2017 was not endorsed by him. The said representation dated 11.03.2017, is the beginning of the issues that had subsequently led to institution of the present proceeding. 6. On receipt of the said communication, the Dean of the University i.e., the respondent no. 7, vide communication dated 24.08.2017, required the petitioner to submit his written reply on the issue as to why, as the HOD, he had arrived at a conclusion that the Fellowship application of the respondent no. 9, cannot be forwarded by the Department. The petitioner, vide his communication dated 29.08.2017, submitted his written reply to the query as raised by the respondent no. 7 vide the communication dated 24.08.2017 and therein, had stated that initially on 08.04.2016, the respondent no. 9 had approached him at his residence with a request to forward his application for the INSPIRE Fellowship, as the last date for applying the form online was on 10.04.2016. Page No.# 6/28 7. The petitioner contended therein, that noticing that the application of the respondent no. 9 was already endorsed by one faculty i.e., the respondent no. 8 as his Ph.D. Supervisor and the candidate had also given a declaration therein that the information furnished were true to his knowledge and, in case of any disclosure made, found incorrect, his Fellowship was liable to be cancelled, the petitioner herein, forwarded the said application by making due endorsement on the body of the same. The petitioner, further contended that in the month of March, 2017, while allotting Supervisors to the candidates for provisional registration for Ph.D. posts, it was noticed that the respondent no. 9 was in fact, not allotted a Supervisor previously. The information as provided by the respondent no. 9 of the respondent no. 8 being his Supervisor, being not correct, he had not forwarded the application of the respondent no. 9. The petitioner requested the authority i.e., the respondent no. 7 to communicate the correct position to the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India, before such query is made by the said Department from the University in the matter. 8. The materials brought on record reveals that the respondent no. 7, basing on the replies received and the enquiry made by him, had proceeded vide note dated 30.08.2017, to recommended that the Fellowship amount be released to the respondent no. 9 herein, and the same was approved by the competent authority of the University. In the said note, the reply from the petitioner was also noticed and it was stated that the petitioner had pointed out some lapses in the procedure. Thereafter, the Registrar, vide a communication dated 21.12.2017, forwarded an undertaking submitted by the respondent no. 9, to the petitioner herein, and requested that the Fellowship claim form of the respondent no. 9, may be forwarded by the Department for processing to the authority. The petitioner herein, on 29.01.2018, forwarded the claim of the respondent no. 9 in the prescribed format, however, therein, made an endorsement to the effect that the information provided by the respondent no. 9 and respondent no. 8 was wrong; and that, the respondent no. 8 was a Supervisor of the respondent no. 9 only w.e.f. March, 2017. Further, the petitioner, in the said endorsement also highlighted that he is not responsible for any consequences/mistakes in future, if it is detected. Page No.# 7/28 9. The said endorsement made by the petitioner, led to the students agitating in the matter and accordingly, a meeting was held in the matter between the representatives of the student’s union and the management of the Assam University. The petitioner was also involved in the said meeting. 10. With regard to the Fellowship claim of the respondent no. 9 and the delay occasioning therein, in the meeting it was resolved to constitute an enquiry committee to enquire into the same. A further allegation came to be leveled against the petitioner herein, regarding his promotion to have been so effected illegally and also an allegation of plagiarism came to be leveled against him. The petitioner, in view of the fact that an enquiry was decided to be held in the matter against him, recused himself from the position of the HOD and other administrative positions, till the enquiry is over and he is exonerated. 11. Accordingly, enquiry committee was constituted by the Registrar of the University, vide notification dated 31.01.2018. The enquiry committee required the respondent no. 9 to appear before it along with necessary documents. However, the respondent no. 9, vide his communication dated 05.03.2018, by projecting that the committee so constituted was biased, refrained from appearing before the committee. The said committee proceeded with the enquiry and thereafter, submitted its report on 31.01.2018. 12. With regard to the allegation of delay in forwarding the Fellowship claim application of the respondent no. 9, the committee did not find anything adverse against the petitioner, herein, however, made an observation that the recommendation of the Dean, in the matter, was to be taken as final and the matter be settled immediately. 13. With regard to the allegation of harassment of the respondent no. 9 by the petitioner, the committee concluded that from the materials brought on record during the enquiry, nothing was available to establish the said allegation against the petitioner, herein, and the same was also not permissible on account of the non-appearance of the respondent no. 9 before it. Page No.# 8/28 14. The said recommendation of the enquiry committee constituted by the University authorities was placed before the Executive Council of the University, in its 119th meeting. The Executive Council considered the same in the said meeting as, Item No. 51. The Executive Council thereafter, adopted a resolution to the effect that the report of the committee had not revealed harassment of the student and no evidence was brought on record, from which such harassment could have been held to be established. However, the Executive Council also resolved that such issues be handled very carefully and advised the administration to devise a mechanism for avoiding such type of delays in future. A copy of the enquiry report was also directed to be made available to the respondent no. 9, herein. 15. The matter, accordingly, had got a closure with the decision of the Executive Council, in its 119th meeting held on 05.06.2018. However, it is seen from the records that an emergent meeting of the Executive Council was convened on 12.07.2018 and the same was for discussion on the issue relating to alleged harassment of a Research Scholar, i.e. the respondent no. 9, in the Department of Mathematics. The said meeting was so convened, basing on a representations submitted by the Assam University Student’s Union, expressing dissatisfaction with the report of the committee that was so constituted on 31.01.2018; and the subsequent Executive Council resolutions dated 05.06.2018. The Executive Council discussed the said issue, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 and for the purpose had heard and noted the statements of the respondent no. 9 along with the statements of the President of the said Student’s Union and adopted 8 resolutions, in this connection. 16. One of the resolutions adopted in the matter was to send the petitioner on long leave and the leave to continue until the decision of the enquiry committee and clearance from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, for all purposes was received. 17. A one member enquiry committee was directed to be constituted for enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner with regard to the harassment caused to the Page No.# 9/28 respondent no. 9. The other resolutions would be dealt with later in the present order. In terms of the said resolution adopted by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018, the petitioner was removed from the position HOD, Department of Mathematics and the respondent no. 10 was so appointed in his place. 18. The petitioner, vide a separate order dated 01.08.2018, was placed on long leave until the enquiry committee report and the clearance from the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India was received. However, for such period of leave, the petitioner was held to be entitled to his pay and allowances Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instituting the present proceeding. 19. This Court, vide order dated 24.08.2018, while issuing notice in the matter, noticing the resolutions adopted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 12.07.2018, and it being not apparent as to the reason why the petitioner was sent on long leave, proceeded to require a clarification in the matter from the University authorities and till such time, was pleased to stay the Resolution no. 7 as adopted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 12.07.2018. The said interim order is subsisting as on date. 20. Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, after reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that although the petitioner has endorsed the initial application of the respondent no. 9 for being awarded the INSPIRE Fellowship claim, the same was so made by him only on account of the endorsement already existing in the form of the respondent no. 8, wherein, he had projected that he was the Research Supervisor of the respondent no. 9. 21. It is submitted by Mr. Nath that when the matter was being examined for allotment of Supervisors to the Ph.D. candidates, it was noticed that the respondent no. 9 was not allotted a Supervisor till then i.e., till March, 2017. Thereafter, the application submitted by the respondent no. 9, having come to the petitioner for his endorsement, the petitioner having noticed that the allotment of Supervisor to the respondent no. 9 as well as the Page No.# 10/28 manner in which the respondent no. 9 was facilitated by the University authorities to draw amounts under the INSPIRE Fellowship, even for a period when he was not registered as a Ph.D. candidate, the petitioner had not made any further endorsement in the said form, submitted by the respondent no. 9. 22. Mr. Nath submits that in terms of the ordinance of the Doctor of Philosophy as framed under the provisions of Section 28 (1)(b) of the Assam University Act 1989, an intending candidate is required to clear the Integrated Pre-Ph.D. Course work of the University. It is thereafter only; the candidate is permitted to register himself for the Ph.D. programme. He submits that the respondent no. 9 had applied for the Integrated Pre-Ph.D. Course work on 11.01.2016 and thereafter, appeared in the exam held in the month of May, 2016. His registration as a Ph.D. candidate had occasioned only on issuance of a notification dated 28.07.2017, wherein it was reflected that the respondent no. 9 was granted Ph.D. registration on 09.03.2017 only. Accordingly, Mr. Nath submits that the respondent no. 9 was not entitled to receive the INSPIRE Fellowship emoluments, prior to 09.03.2017 i.e., prior to his registration as a Ph.D. candidate. 23. Mr. Nath submits that when the Dean of the college i.e. respondent no. 7, herein, had required the petitioner to convey his views, in writing, as to why the application of the respondent no. 9 for INSPIRE Fellowship was not forwarded by the Department, the petitioner had put forward his explanation on 29.08.2017. It is further projected by Mr. Nath, learned Senior Counsel that on receipt of the replies from the petitioner, a note was prepared on 30.08.2017 and a perusal of the same would reveal that the explanation submitted by the petitioner, in the matter, was duly considered and it was also noted that the petitioner had pointed out some lapses in the procedure followed. Mr. Nath submits that the Dean had thereafter, recommended that the Fellowship amount be released to the respondent no. 9 and in the event, any complication arises in the matter; the persons concerned, would be responsible for the same. Mr. Nath submits that the said note dated 30.08.2017, vindicates the stand taken by the petitioner in the matter. 24. Mr. Nath, thereafter, submits that a communication dated 21.12.2017 was issued to Page No.# 11/28 the petitioner by the Registrar, forwarding the Fellowship claims of the respondent no. 9 in the prescribed format. It is submitted that the petitioner, on receipt of the said form had made certain endorsements therein, and had forwarded the same to the authorities for further processing. Mr. Nath by referring to the endorsements made by the petitioner in the application form, on 29.01.2019, has submitted that the same is only a reiteration of the views expressed by him earlier in his communication dated 29.08.2017 and were to the effect that the petitioner would not be responsible for any consequences(mistakes) in future, if it is detected. 25. Mr. Nath submits that the said endorsement as made by the petitioner, was with the view to protect himself as well as the University authorities in the matter. However, the same was taken as an offence by the respondent no. 9 and the student’s union which led to agitational programme. Mr. Nath submits that for resolution of the grievance raised by the student’s union of the University, a meeting was convened; and therein, the petitioner was also present. In the said meeting, an enquiry being directed to be conducted and further, allegations having been leveled against the petitioner, he had recused himself from the position of the Head of the Department and other administrative positions till the enquiry was completed. 26. Mr. Nath submits that the enquiry committee as appointed in the matter, on a due consideration of the issues placed before it, had not found anything adverse against the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that with regard to the allegation of harassment caused to the respondent no. 9 by the petitioner, no material had come on record to conclusively draw any conclusion in the matter against the petitioner. Mr. Nath thereafter, by referring to the minutes of the 119th meeting of the Executive Council held on 05.06.2018 has submitted that the enquiry report was duly perused by the members of the Executive Council and it was resolved that there was no sufficient evidence of harassment being caused by the petitioner to the respondent no. 9 and the said issue was dropped with an advisory to the University authorities. Mr. Nath has submitted that the matter was resolved with the decision taken by the Executive Council, in its said 119th meeting. Mr. Page No.# 12/28 Nath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that without any basis the University authorities had convened a fresh meeting of the Executive Council on 12.07.2018, for consideration of the same issue which was already given a closure by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 05.06.2018. 27. By referring to the resolutions so adopted by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018, Mr. Nath has at the outset, submitted that the in the said meeting, the Executive Council had heard the respondent no. 9 as well as the President of the Student’s Union of the University and thereafter, had proceeded to take resolutions in matter against the petitioner herein. Mr. Nath submits that the resolutions as adopted by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 are clearly without any basis and were so adopted behind the back of the petitioner, without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Mr. Nath submits that the Executive Council, while taking the said resolutions had ignored the note put up by the Dean of the University on 30.08.2017, which was also approved by the competent authority of the University, as well as the materials which were highlighted by the enquiry committee, in its report dated 13.04.2018. 28. Mr. Nath, by referring to the Clause-7 of the resolutions adopted by the Executive Council has submitted that while the petitioner therein, was required to be send on long leave, no reasons was however assigned for the said decisions so arrived at by the Executive Council. Mr. Nath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in the backdrop of the said developments taking place in the matter has submitted that the University authorities had drawn an adverse presumption against the petitioner only upon hearing the respondent no. 9 and the President of the Student’s Union without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on this count alone, the decision of the Executive Council stands vitiated. He further submits that the decisions as arrived at by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 would go to reveal that the same are all perverse. Mr. Nath submits that although an enquiry was directed in the matter, the petitioner was never issued with any notice for appearing before any such enquiry committee constituted in the matter. Page No.# 13/28 29. In the above premises, Mr. Nath submits that the impugned decision as arrived at against the petitioner by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 would require interference by this Court. He further submits that there being nothing adverse brought on record against the petitioner, he is required to be permitted to complete his term as the Head of the Department of Mathematics and it should held that there is no bar in appointing the petitioner as the Head of the Department of the said Department in the University. 30. Mr. Nath has also prayed that the materials coming on record, having revealed that the final registration of the respondent no. 9 for the INSPIRE Fellowship programme was so done in clear violation of the guidelines of the said programme, an enquiry is required to be directed by this Court, to identify the persons responsible for commission of the illegality occasioning in the matter. 31. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Assam University has at the outset, submitted that the petitioner had through illegal means received his promotion to the rank of Professor in the University. Mr. Keyal, further submits that the materials brought on record in the matter, would reveal that the petitioner herein, had deliberately delayed the forwarding of the final application of the respondent no. 9 for the INSPIRE Fellowship, although the same was made strictly, in accordance with the procedure mandated in this connection. 32. Mr. Keyal by referring to the endorsements made in the final claim application by the petitioner, on 25.01.2018 has submitted that the endorsements made therein were clearly false and were so made with the intention that the respondent no. 9 would be deprived of his Fellowship, which was already sanctioned to him. Mr. Keyal submits that the respondent no. 9 had duly taken admission in the Ph.D. programme as per the Assam University Ordinance of Doctor of Philosophy and accordingly, he was entitled to the INSPIRE Fellowship emoluments. 33. Mr. Keyal has further submitted that considering the materials available on record Page No.# 14/28 against the petitioner, he would not be a fit person to be allowed to function as the Head of the Department of Mathematics and accordingly, the decision was arrived at to replace the petitioner as the Head of the Department of Mathematics. Mr. Keyal has submitted that the admission into the Integrated Pre-Ph.D. course, in terms of the UGC guidelines, would also mean enrolment into the Ph.D. programme, inasmuch as, there is no further admission process mandated for registration as a Ph.D. programme candidate in the University. Accordingly, he submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner being not supported by the ordinance holding the field, in this connection in the University, as well as the UGC guidelines, goes to reveal that the petitioner had deliberately tried to deprive the respondent no. 9 from the due benefits of the INSPIRE Fellowship programme, for which he was given a final registration. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition would be called upon to be dismissed. 34. Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has submitted that the endorsement made initially by the respondent no. 8 in the application form of the respondent no. 9 that, he is the Supervisor of the respondent no. 9, was so made strictly in accordance with the procedure mandated in this connection. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 9 having taken admission into the Integrated Pre-Ph.D. programme, on 11.01.2016, there was no bar for the respondent no. 9 in drawing the benefits under the INSPIRE Fellowship scheme. It is further submitted that the name of the respondent no. 8, as a Supervisor, was so given by the respondent no. 9 in the year 2015 along with 2 other Supervisors from 2 different universities. It is further highlighted by Mr. Dutta that in a departmental meeting held on 07.01.2016, the respondent no. 8 was assigned as a Supervisor of respondent no. 9. Accordingly, he submits that the contentions raised contrary to the above position by the petitioner, would not mandate acceptance by this Court. 35. Mr. Dutta, also reiterates the submission made by the learned counsel for the University authorities. 36. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 submits that the Page No.# 15/28 respondent no. 9 had applied for the INSPIRE Fellowship programme, strictly in accordance with the procedure mandated to be followed in the matter. He submits that the petitioner had taken admission into the Integrated Pre-Ph.D. programme on 11.01.2016 and, he submits that the respondent no. 9, in terms of the provisions of the UGC Regulation, 2009, would be deemed to be a Ph.D. candidate w.e.f. the date he had taken admission into the Integrated Ph.D. course programme. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that the materials brought on record would go to reveal that in spite of the fact that the claim of the respondent no. 9, for being released with the financial benefits under the INSPIRE Fellowship scheme was approved by the competent authorities, the petitioner herein, had taken steps in the mater to delay release of such benefits to the respondent no. 9 and thereafter, had made endorsements in his final claim application form with a view to deprive the respondent no. 9 herein, from the said benefits. Accordingly, he submits that the allegation of harassment being caused by the petitioner to the respondent no. 9 was brought to the forefront. It is further submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that the petitioner is a habitual harasser of students of the University and also frequently resorts to insubordination, for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 37. Mr. Chakraborty, reiterates that the admission of the respondent no. 9 for the Ph.D. programme has to be deemed to have been so done on 11.01.2016 in the matter, and that it is inconsequential whether such admission was into an Integrated Pre-Ph.D. programme. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that the report of the committee as constituted in the matter, on being furnished to the respondent no. 9, the apprehension of the respondent no. 9 earlier expressed while refraining from appearing before the committee, stood vindicated. Accordingly, the respondent no. 9 had further raised the issue with the University authorities, which had led to the convening of the 121st meeting of the Executive Council on 12.07.2018. Mr. Chakraborty submits that the resolutions as adopted by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 were so done basing on the materials available on record before it. Accordingly, he submits that the resolutions as adopted in the matter being only in the nature of requiring an enquiry to be conducted, Page No.# 16/28 against the petitioner, herein, the same would not mandate interference from this Court. He further submits that in the event, the said process is not permitted to be taken to its logical conclusions; the very image of the University would suffer. 38. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, who has also entered appearance for the respondent no. 10 i.e. the Head of the Department, who had replaced the petitioner, submits that the post of Head of the Department is a responsibility given to the Professor/Assistant Professor on rotation basis, for a period of 3 years and such person shall be eligible for reappointment. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 10 that there being allegations against the petitioner, relating to harassment of students, plagarism and copyright violation, the University authorities had initiated an enquiry against the petitioner and the decision thereof, is pending. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appointment of the respondent no. 10 as the Head of the Department, replacing the petitioner in the factual matrix obtaining in the matter, would not call for an interference by this Court. 39. In have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 40. The facts as noticed herein above, is not disputed by the parties to the proceeding. The petitioner herein, at the initial stage endorsed the application submitted by the respondent no. 9 for being enrolled in the INSPIRE Fellowship and the justification as held out by the petitioner for the matter, has been noticed herein above, which is to the effect that the said application had the endorsement of the Supervisor i.e. the respondent no. 8. 41. The issue, which had led to the filing of the present writ petition, arose with the submission of a representation by the respondent no. 9, on 02.08.2017, wherein he had alleged that his claim, which was placed to the Head of the Department, Department of Mathematics i.e., the petitioner, herein, on 11.03.2017, was not forwarded by him and thereafter, the same was kept pending, for the reason of which, he was deprived of his due financial benefits and was suffering from mental stress. The representation of the Page No.# 17/28 respondent no. 9 was considered by the departmental authorities and the Dean of the University, vide communication dated 24.08.2017 had required the petitioner herein, to give a written reply with regard to the reasons as to why the application of the respondent no. 9 was not forwarded by the department. 42. The petitioner responded to the said communication dated 24.08.2017, vide his communication dated 29.08.2017 and, had therein, highlighted that although initially, he had forwarded the application of the respondent no. 9 noticing the endorsement made therein by the respondent no. 8 herein, however, subsequently when it came to his notice that there was no allocation made of Supervisor, to the candidate who had applied for the Ph.D. programme in the department, the declaration made by the candidate in the form, was found to be incorrect. Accordingly, the petitioner, in the said communication had required the University authorities to examine the matter with regard to the declarations made both by the respondent no. 9 and 8, in the application form of the respondent no. 9. The petitioner, further requested that the correct information be thereafter, forwarded to the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India and necessary correction be made before the communications in the matter is issued by the Government of India. 43. It is seen that the said replies of the petitioner was duly examined by the Dean of the University and he had put up a note dated 30.08.2017. The note as put up by the Dean of the University, being relevant is extracted herein below: - “ASSAM UNIVERSITY NOTE SHEET This has reference to the release of Fellowship to Mr. Dibyendu Saha (PhD Scholar), DST-INSPIRE Fellow in the Department of Mathematics, for which Honourable Vice Chancellor has directed the undersigned to inquire into the matter and report back (Please refer document flagged as 'A'). Accordingly, letters were sent to HOD, Mathematics (Prof. S. Behera) and Dr. S. Sengupta, (as he has signed as supervisor in the application for the release of Fellowship from the student). These letters were sent seeking views from Prof. Page No.# 18/28 Behera and Dr. Sengupta about this matter. Replies from Prof. Behera and Dr. Sengupta have been received (flagged as 'B'). Dr. Sengupta has explained the circumstances under which he is signing as supervisor in all the documents. However, Prof. S. Behera as HOD (Maths) has pointed out some lapses in the procedure. Under these circumstances, it is recommended that, Fellowship amount may be released to the PhD scholar. However, in case of any complications arising in future, the concerned persons will be responsible for the alleged lapses. 44. A perusal of the said note would go to reveal that the Dean, after having noted the issue arising in the matter, had considered the replies submitted by the petitioner and the respondent no. 8 and further, noted that the petitioner had pointed out some lapses in the procedure of processing of the application of the respondent no. 9 for grant of INSPIRE Fellowship. After noticing the said position, no further adverse remark was made against the petitioner herein, and the Dean of the University had recommended that the Fellowship amount be released to the respondent no. 9, with the further stipulation that in case of any complications arising in future, the concerned persons would be held responsible for the alleged lapses. 45. The said note of the Dean ought to have given the matter a closure, however, it is seen that the endorsement made by the petitioner in the final claim form of the respondent no. 9 for the INSPIRE Fellowship benefits, which was placed, thereafter, before the petitioner further escalated the matter. The endorsement made by the petitioner in the said form of the respondent no. 9 on 29.01.2018, being relevant is extracted herein below: - “1. The information provided by the candidate & Dr. S. Sengupta is wrong. 2. Dr. Sengupta is supervisor w.e.f. March 2017 (BPGS) only. Page No.# 19/28 The undersigned is not responsible for any consequences (mistakes) in future if it is detected. See File Notings.” 46. A perusal of the said endorsement would go to reveal that the petitioner had projected that the information provided by the respondent no. 9 and the respondent no. 8 were wrong. He further projected that the respondent no. 8 was the Supervisor of the respondent no. 9 w.e.f. March, 2017 only. 47. Having noted the above two points, the petitioner further made a note to the effect that the petitioner is not responsible for any consequences/mistakes in future, if it is detected and for the purpose and had referred to a file noting. The file noting, in the considered view of this Court, is the note put up by the Dean on 30.08.2017. 48. The said endorsement as made by the petitioner, on 29.01.2018, in the claim form of the respondent no. 9 for being released the final INSPIRE Fellowship benefits, as noted herein above, had escalated the matter and an agitational programme was undertaken by the Student’s Union of the University and therein, the issue with regard to the manner in which the Fellowship claim made by the respondent no. 9 was so dealt with, was also raised. The University authorities, had convened a meeting with the Student’s Union of 30.01.2018, wherein the petitioner had also participated. In the meeting, the Student’s Union of the University had raised an issue with regard to the delay in forwarding of the INSPIRE Fellowship claim of the respondent no. 9, by the petitioner, herein, and also an allegation of harassment by the petitioner to the respondent no. 9 came to be raised. In the said meeting, it was decided that an enquiry committee would be constituted to enquire into the delay and alleged harassment that the respondent no. 9 was subjected to. The Student’s Union further demanded that in view of an allegation of illegal promotion and plagiarism existing against the petitioner, the matter being enquired into and so long as the enquiry is over and the petitioner is not exonerated, he should recuse himself from the position of Head of Department and other administrative positions. Page No.# 20/28 49. It is seen that the petitioner, in view of the said development taking place in the matter, had himself recused from the position of HOD, Mathematics and other administrative positions till the enquiry was over and he was exonerated. In pursuance to the decisions as arrived at, in the meeting held on 30.01.2018, an enquiry committee was constituted by the Registrar of the University, vide notification dated 31.08.2018 and the respondent no. 9 was issued with a communication, requiring him to appear before the enquiry committee along with all supporting documents and proofs, having evidentiary value. The respondent no. 9, vide communication dated 05.03.2018, raising an apprehension of bias against the said Committee, contended that he would not be present before the committee. 50. The Committee, as constituted in the matter, proceeded with the enquiry and on conclusion of the same, submitted its report on 31.01.2018. The Committee also considered the note dated 30.08.2017, put up by the Dean of the University in the matter and noticed that the recommendation was made therein, for release of the Fellowship amount to the respondent no. 9. The Committee also noted in its report, the delay occasioning in processing of the claim application of the respondent no. 9 by various authorities of the University, who had dealt with the claim application. In the said report, the committee further noted that the claim papers of the respondent no. 9 were eventually cleared by all concerned and the Fellowship amount was released on 31.01.2018 and 01.02.2018. Noticing the long delay occasioning in the matter, the Committee had held that the same was inordinate and it had a serious implication on the learner’s pursuit and well-being. Thereafter, the Committee drew the following conclusions: - “ II. DELAY: IN THE DEPARTMENT The matter relating to inordinate delay in forwarding the Claim papers of the Ph. D. candiadate Sri Dibyendu Saha was investigated earlier by Professor Asoke Kumar Sen, Dean, School of Physical Sciences, Assam University, Silchar. A copy of the Report Page No.# 21/28 (dated 30th August, 2017) submitted by Professor Asoke Kumar Sen is annexed hereto (Annexure-II). From the papers furnished before it, this Committee finds nothing that can contradict the observations contained in Professor Asoke Kumar Sen's Report. "Some lapses in the procedure" were cited in the above Dean's Report as the reasons offered by HOD, Mathematics (Prof. Samir Behera) for the delay. It is the considered opinion of this Committee's that, for any lapse/lapses, appropriate corrective/disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated separately as per AU Statutes and Ordinances instead of withholding the forwarding of the scholar's Fellowship claim. No paper, of course, relating to the Initiation of any disciplinary proceeding against either the scholar or the research-supervisor came to the sight of this Committee. Therefore, in this Committee's view, Professor Asoke Kumar Sen, as Dean of the School of Physical science, AU was acting perfectly within the limits of his authority when for justified reason he by overruling the points raised by the HOD, Mathematics recommended that, Fellowship amount may be released to the Ph. D. scholar". Statute 7(3) of Assam University categorically states that "The Dean shall be the Head of the School and shall be responsible for the conduct and maintenance of the standards of teaching and research in the School". Statute 17 (5) (a) makes it clear that Departments are to be taken essentially as the constituent-units within the School. The above Statute 7(3) and Statute 17 (5) (a) when read together make the authority- relationship clear. The Dean is the "Head of the School" (including the Department under reference) and hence, by implication, he has every authority to overrule any position/decision taken by a Department's Head. In the given case, the Dean recommended categorically that "Fellowship amount may be released to the Ph. D. Page No.# 22/28 scholar". This Committee fails to understand why the recommendation of the Dean, in the case under reference, was not taken as 'final' and the matter not settled accordingly and immediately by the concerned wings of the AU Administration.” 51. A perusal of the said conclusions, drawn by the enquiry committee, would go to reveal that the same had not brought on record anything adverse against the petitioner herein. It further reveals that the issue pertaining to the processing of the claim application of the respondent no. 9 was given a closure. 52. With regard to the issue of harassment of the respondent no. 9, the Committee in its said report noted that there was no formal complaint lodged, regarding the harassment caused if any, to the respondent no. 9. The absence of the respondent no. 9 during the hearing taken by the committee also, led the committee to hold that it was not in a position to initiate or conduct any enquiry into the alleged harassment. The said report of the committee was placed before the Executive Council, in its 119th meeting held on 05.06.2018 as Item No. 51. The resolutions adopted by the Executive Council of the University, being relevant is extracted herein below: - “ Item No. 51: Report of the Enquiry Committee on Fellowship claim of a Research Scholar in the Dept. of Mathematics: EC:119:05-18:51: The report of the 02 (two) members committee constituted vide office notification No. AUR/21-1/2018/732 dtd. 31/01/2018 to enquire into the cause of inordinate delay in forwarding of Inspire Fellowship claim of Mr. Dibyendu Saha, Research Scholar of the Dept. of Mathematics and alleged harassment of the scholar by the Head of the Dept., was tabled in the meeting for further discussion and decision, Resolution: The report of the Enquiry Committee constituted for the purpose was Page No.# 23/28 placed before the Council and on perusal of the report the members of the Council observed that the harassment to the student was having no sufficient evidences and thus could not arrived at a point where the harassment can be established. However, the Council was on the opinion that such issues to be handled very carefully. Therefore, the Council advised the administration to devise a mechanism for avoiding such types of delay in future. The Council also advised that the Report of the Enquiry Committee (Pg. 6) be made available to the scholar concerned.” 53. A perusal of the said resolution adopted by the Executive Council in the matter would go to reveal that the council was of the opinion that the allegation of harassment to the respondent no. 9, was not supported by sufficient evidences and accordingly, the harassment could not be established. The Council also observed that the issue involved has to be handled carefully and therefore, the Council advised the administration of the University to devise a mechanism for avoiding such type of delay in future. A copy of the report of the enquiry committee was also directed to be forwarded to the respondent no. 9. 54. The above developments taking place in the matter, more particularly, the note of the Dean of the University, the report of the enquiry committee as well as the resolutions adopted by the Executive Council in the matter, in its meeting held on 05.06.2018, ought to have given a closure to the allegations raised against the petitioner herein, by the respondent no. 9. However, it is seen that basing on an approach made by the Student’s Union and the respondent no. 9, an emergent meeting of the Executive Council was convened on 12.07.2018 as its 121st meeting. 55. The agenda for the said meeting was the allegation of harassment caused to the respondent no. 9 by the petitioner. The Executive Council in the matter, on reconsideration of its earlier decision arrived at in the meeting held on 05.06.2018, proceeded to adopt the following resolutions: - “ Resolution: The case of harassment to Dibyendu Saha, Inspire Fellow, Dept of Page No.# 24/28 Mathematics by the HOD Mathematics Prof. S. Behera was discussed in detail as per agenda. The Council heard and noted the statement of the said scholar alongwith statement of the President, AUSU. Thereafter the Council unanimously taken into cognizance of the harassment of Dibyendu Saha very seriously and resolve as follows. 1. The INSPIRE Fellowship of Mr. Dibyendu Saha will be made available from the University fund and the said money will be adjusted from the Fellowship grant to be received from DST. An undertaking to this affect be received from the concerned scholar. 2. All notings, comments and derogatory remarks against Shri Dibyendu Saha and his Supervisor, Dr. Sanjib Sengupta in the Claim Form and in related file stands nullified. In this regard a notification be issued stating that all comments, allegations stands cancelled. 3. Regular Head of the Department of Mathematics be appointed immediately within 07 days for smooth functioning of the Department. Prof. Asoke Kr. Sen, Dean, School of Physical Science, who is acting as Head 1/c, Mathematics has expressed his inability to continue as Head i/c of Mathematics and therefore, appointment of regular Head be finalized by the administration from amongst the faculty of the department of Mathematics as per A. U. rule. 4. A proper redressal mechanism be made in the University for addressing such cases in future. 5. One Member Enquiry Committee headed by a Retired Judge of High Court /or an Officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary will be constituted for enquiring the case of harassment of Shri Dibyendu Saha, Scholar, Dept. of Mathematics by Prof. Samira Behera, the then HOD, Mathematics. Three names of Enquiry Officer will be proposed by three member committee viz. Prof. Nagendra Pandey, Prof. Sajal Nag & Prof. P. B. Mazumder, DSW. The Vice Chancellor will select one name as Enquiry Officer from the proposed list. Page No.# 25/28 6. Regarding the alleged Plagiarism and Copyright infringement and illegal promotion of Prof. Samira Behera, Dept of Mathematics University will pursue the matter to MHRD for directions on the course of action to be taken. 7. Prof. Samira Behera shall be sent on long leave and the leave will continue until the decision of the Enquiry Committee and clearance from MHRD for all purposes as stated above. 8. The enquiry report on harassment of the concerned scholar in the Dept. of Mathematics submitted by Prof. A. Mazumder & Prof. D. Roy Committee was nullified by the Council but no decision on the demand of the students representative to the effect that Prof. A. Mazumder shall not be involved in any of the administrative committee could be taken by the Council.” 56. A perusal of the resolutions as adopted by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018, would go to reveal that the Executive Council for the purpose of adoption of the resolutions had heard the respondent no. 9 and the President of the Student’s Union of the University. The resolutions as adopted, does not reveal that any notice of the said meeting was issued to the petitioner and/or, he was heard before the resolutions were so adopted. The resolutions as adopted by the committee, being solely based on the projections made before it by the respondent no. 9 as well as the President of the Student’s Union of the University, this Court is of the view that the said resolutions as adopted, were clearly one sided and the same, could not have been so adopted without affording an opportunity of hearing also to the petitioner, herein. 57. A perusal of the resolutions so adopted, would go to further reveal that the Executive Council had required the INSPIRE Fellowship financial benefits be released to the respondent no. 9 from the University fund and for adjustment of the same, when the amount is received from the Department of Science & Technology. It proceeded further to nullify all noting, comments and derogatory remarks made against the respondent no. 9 Page No.# 26/28 and the respondent no. 8, herein, in the claim form of the respondent no. 9. 58. The Committee had further resolved that a one-member enquiry committee, headed by a retired Judge of the High Court or, an officer, not below the rank of Joint Secretary, to be constituted for enquiry into the allegation of harassment of the respondent no. 9 by the petitioner, herein, and accordingly, proposed 3 names for the purpose, out of which, one was to be selected by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. 59. With regard to the allegations of plagarism and copyright infringement and illegal promotion of the petitioner, the Executive Council resolved that the University authorities will pursue the matter with the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department, for directions on the course of action to be taken. 60. Having drawn the above resolutions, the Executive Council, proceeded to resolve that the petitioner, herein, should be send of long leave and the leave to be continued until decision of the enquiry committee and clearance from the Ministry of Human Resource Development for all purpose, as stated above, is received. 61. The resolutions as adopted by the enquiry committee is not found to have been so adopted, basing on materials produced by it and the same is solely based on the projections made before the Committee, in its said meeting, by the respondent no. 9 and the President of the Student’s Union of the University. 62. The endorsement dated 29.01.2018, made by the petitioner in the claim form of the respondent no. 9, which had further escalated the matter and also led to the reiteration of the allegation against the petitioner of having caused harassment to the respondent no. 9, has again been perused by this Court; and this Court, does not find the said note to have in any manner brought adverse consequences in the matter upon the respondent no. 9. On a plain reading of the said endorsement, it is revealed that the petitioner had only expressed his view and had sought to insulate himself from any further action that may be Page No.# 27/28 imitated, in the event, the claim made by the respondent no. 9 is detected to be false. 63. The view taken by the petitioner in the matter, being a plausible view and the same also having been noticed by the Dean of the University, in his note dated 30.08.2017, this Court, is of the considered view that the endorsement as made by the petitioner on 29.01.2018, could not have been projected as to have caused harassment to the respondent no. 9, herein. It is also to be noted that the respondent no.9 was subsequently released the financial benefits due to him under the INSPIRE Fellowship Scheme. Further, the Executive Council, while proceeding to resolve that the petitioner should be send on long leave, had not set out any reason for the same. The allegations against the petitioner, if found, to have been substantiated and was held to be a misconduct, nothing had prevented the Executive Council to recommend drawl of departmental proceedings against the petitioner. 64. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that resolutions as adopted by the Executive Council, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the same in addition to being perverse, was so taken basing on the projections made before it by the respondent no. 9 and the President of the Student’s Union of the University, who were heard by the Council’s members during the course of the said meeting, however, without providing an equal opportunity to the petitioner, to also place his stand in the matter. Accordingly, the resolutions as adopted by the Executive Council, under Item No. 01, in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 stands set aside. 65. Having interfered with the said decision, the consequential order passed thereon, by the University authorities, more particularly, the order dated 01.08.2018; placing the petitioner on long leave also stands set aside. 66. The resolutions of the Executive Council, arrived at in its meeting held on 12.07.2018 and the consequential orders passed thereon, having been interfered with, Page No.# 28/28 this Court, directs that the petitioner being eligible to be appointed as the Head of Department, Department of Mathematics, Assam University, his case for such appointment, be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Statutes of the University, pertaining to the appointment of the Head of Departments. 67. Having made the above observations and directions, this Court, would also provide that in the event, there exist materials on record, from which the University authorities can draw a conclusion of commission of mis-conduct by the petitioner, herein, this order, would not come in the way of initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law. 68. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant