It’s only a few faculty members who with the help of higher-ups in the UT administration have been filing false complaints and targeting a “woman principal” of the Chandigarh College of Architecture (CCA), college principal Sangeeta Bagga submitted in her reply before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Stating that while her plea was submitted only with facts and documentary proofs, Bagga claimed that UT’s statements were only aimed at misleading the court and covering up their illegalities.
Bagga had approached CAT, challenging the July 19 decision of the UT administration of assigning the charge of principal to UT chief architect Kapil Setia on interim basis.
Acting on her plea, CAT on July 22 had stayed UT’s decision and had sought a reply from the UT administration.
In its reply, the UT administration had stated that the additional charge of principal was withdrawn from Bagga for a fair and impartial inquiry into the serious complaints received against her. It had also asserted that Kapil Setia had been rightly assigned the temporary charge, and had therefore sought vacation of CAT’s July 22 order.
Responding to UT’s application, Bagga’s counsel Rohit Seth submitted that the charge for the post cannot be assigned to anyone as per the whims and fancies of the respondents (UT).
{{/usCountry}}Responding to UT’s application, Bagga’s counsel Rohit Seth submitted that the charge for the post cannot be assigned to anyone as per the whims and fancies of the respondents (UT).
{{/usCountry}}It was submitted that under the Recruitment Rules, 1991, passed by UPSC and followed by Chandigarh, the essential qualifications for the post of principal were a PhD with six years of teaching/research experience, a master degree in architecture with eight years of experience in teaching/research/industry or a bachelor of architecture degree with 10 years of experience in teaching/research/industry, and five years of all these tenures should be at the level of professor.
“But Kapil Setia does not fulfil the criteria and has not even a single day’s teaching experience,” Bagga’s response contended.
Regarding Bagga’s conduct mentioned by UT, it was stated that it was wrong to convey negative attributes towards her work and conduct without any evidence.
“The repetitive unfounded and bald allegations made in the complaints of the selective faulty members with an unclean record cannot be grounds for casting aspersions on the work and conduct of the applicant (Bagga),” the reply added.
It claimed that the allegations raised were a result of pre-planned attack on Bagga by a handful of disgruntled faculty members to dislodge her in a planned manner by hatching a conspiracy at every level.
“At the same time, they are enjoying full immunity while being shielded by some higher-ups, otherwise they would not have dared to target a woman principal,” the reply said. The case is now listed for August 10 for further arguments.