HC raps Panjab University, wants fresh senate meet to decide DSW extension

Emanual Nahar goes for now, PU told to appoint seniormost professor in his place till decision is taken

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday directed Panjab University (PU) to appoint the seniormost professor of the varsity as the dean student welfare (DSW), as an interim measure, in place of Emanual Nahar.

HT Image

The varsity has been asked to convene a special meeting on Nahar’s extension issue by September 29. The detailed order from the high court division bench of justices RK Jain and AK Tyagi is yet to be released.

Nahar, who was removed from his post by vice-chancellor Raj Kumar on August 22 after an inconclusive senate meeting, joined back on September 3 after a single-judge order on his plea. This order was challenged by the varsity before the division bench, which now has asked for his removal and ordered a fresh senate meeting.

The hearing on Wednesday continued for nearly three hours.

After the bench saw videos of the senate meeting, procured by Nahar under the Right to Information (RTI), the court grilled the varsity’s counsels on several aspects of the issue.

“Show that resolution is there in CD. Matter ends there,” the court observed several times as the counsels failed to give a satisfactory reply on why there is difference between minutes recorded by the varsity and the footage of the August 22 meeting.

“If it (resolution) has been created in minutes. It is very serious,” the court observed, asking them to make the vice-chancellor “understand” consequences of the order if passed in view of developments in court.

The CDs purportedly show no resolution was passed, while meeting records of a resolution. “I (we) strongly feel there is something wrong here,” the court further added. At one point, court also observed it appeared recorded minutes are “manipulated”. “If people running a university are behaving like this. God save the country,” the court observed. The court also said that it would call the PU registrar in court and record his statement on oath.

However, later in order to save the “face of university” and “bury the hatchet”, court ordered a senate meeting, further stating that it be videographed. However, court did not concede to Nahar’s request of appointing an HC observer.

For the varsity and V-C, assistant solicitor general Chetan Mittal, senior advocate Puneet Bali and UT senior standing counsel Pankaj Jain appeared, while for Nahar, senior advocate Gurminder Singh appeared.

In his submissions, Nahar said the argument that the senate could not have deliberated upon the issue was an afterthought as it was the V-C who placed the syndicate decision before the senate. The 15-member syndicate had approved Nahar’s extension with the only dissenting voice being that of Raj Kumar.

It was also alleged that there was no resolution of the senate and 48 members sought voting, which was not allowed by the V-C.

Nahar further alleged that minutes of the meeting were withheld from the single-judge bench and selective portion produced before the court. This claim was strongly contested by the V-C’s counsel. Meanwhile, Nahar’s counsel termed it a case of perjury arguing that while the resolution is something else, the footage shows the opposite.

On the other hand, Bali and Mittal maintained that the senate cannot take up the issue of Nahar’s extension, where syndicate differed, and should have been referred it to the chancellor. They further argued that varsity did not get opportunity to defend itself before the single judge and the relief granted amounted to virtually allowing the petition.