Appointment and further extension of service of Rajneesh Arora, vice-chancellor (VC) of the Punjab Technical University (PTU), Jalandhar, has come under the scanner of the Punjab and Haryana high court.
|Taking up a petition filed by suspended dean of directorate of distance education in PTU, Narinder Paul Singh, who has challenged Arora's appointment and sought a probe by the vigilance bureau (VB), a bench headed by justice Rakesh Kumar Garg issued notices of motion to the Punjab government, PTU, Arora and the VB.
The petitioner, who has raised questions on Arora's appointment to the V-C's post in December 19, 2008, and further three years' extension granted vide notification dated November 21, 2011, has alleged that Arora had been misappropriating public funds by appointing his friends as consultants. In a period of four months, Arora had released around Rs 5 crore to one of his friends, Praveen Kumar, it is alleged.
The court was informed that Arora is ineligible in terms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations issued on June 3, 2010, prescribing minimum qualifications; so all his actions during his extended tenure should be declared a null and void. As per the UGC notification, minimum of 10 years' experience as professor or in an equivalent position is required for the post of V-C.
It was further submitted that Arora was granted extension against the procedure prescribed under the PTU Act 1996. Neither any search committee was constituted nor claims of any other eligible persons in the field of technical education were considered, and thus the PTU board of governors (BOG) could not have recommended the extension in its meeting on October 5, 2011. Even Arora's bio-data was not put up before the BOG as the matter was not on the agenda, it is alleged.
The petitioner said that he, too, was eligible to be considered for the post, but had been deprived of his right since Arora had been illegally granted extension.
It was further submitted that Arora was granted extension against the procedure prescribed under the PTU Act 1996. Neither any search committee was constituted nor claims of any other eligible persons in the field of technical education were considered, and thus the PTU board of governors (BOG) could not have recommended the extension in its meeting on October 5, 2011. Even Arora's bio-data was not put up before the BOG as the matter was not on the agenda, it is alleged.
The petitioner said that he, too, was eligible to be considered for the post, but had been deprived of his right since Arora had been illegally granted extension.
Even the state chief secretary was illegally appointed as chairman of the BOG for the third consecutive term, whereas, the PTU Act says that chairman ought to be a person of national eminence in the field of industry, technology or technical education, the petitioner noted. Later, when a case was filed in the high court, the state government accepted the wrong decision and thus appointed Sunil Kant Munjal as chairman. "When the constitution of BOG was not as per the Act, its decision cannot be legal," the court was informed.
The case has now been posted for next hearing to March 1.