Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 11, 2018-Tuesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Court passes strong strictures against V-C

DISTRICT JUDGE Shiv Charan Sharma passed strong strictures against the Lucknow University vice-chancellor here on Friday. The DJ, in his order, has noted: ?I fail to understand why that the Vice-Chancellor, who is holding an important post, is avoiding compliance of the court order.? The strictures were passed in connection with a case where a university employee Aardima Shukla had not paid rent to her landlady, Gyatri Devi, since 2001 and the amount rose to Rs 1,12,265.

india Updated: Feb 25, 2006 01:35 IST
Padm Kirti

DISTRICT JUDGE Shiv Charan Sharma passed strong strictures against the Lucknow University vice-chancellor here on Friday. The DJ, in his order, has noted: “I fail to understand why that the Vice-Chancellor, who is holding an important post, is avoiding compliance of the court order.”

The strictures were passed in connection with a case where a university employee Aardima Shukla had not paid rent to her landlady, Gyatri Devi, since 2001 and the amount rose to Rs 1,12,265. Gyatari’s counsel Ravindra Kumar filed a case and won it. The court asked the university authorities to attach the salary of Shukla and deposit it in the court. The court sent several notices to the university in this regard but the order was not complied with. It was on December 24 that the DJ ordered the V-C to look into the case.

However, the VC expressed his inability to comply with the court order saying, “There are thousands of cases pending against the university. The court should think over this aspect before passing such an order. I will ask my legal cell to file a representation against the order.”

The DJ, in his order, also expressed his displeasure at the incompetence of the V-C, “…the officer who has been sent to this court is incompetent. An incompetent person has been sent by the V-C.”

The DJ said, “The person SM Zaidi, who has appeared, has stated that it is not his duty to comply with the attachment order whereas the V-C is the head of the university. It was the duty of the VC to earmark the letter (of the court) to the authority concerned and not to an incompetent authority.”

The DJ further said, “As there is a violation and disobedience of the order of this court, there is every reason to issue coercive method. But as the VC of the university is a responsible authority, I do not think it proper to initiate any coercive method but the language used in this order is sufficient to bring in notice of the VC that how orders of this court are being violated and disobeyed.’

The DJ said the case would be heard on April 1 and made another strong observation: “It is expected from a highly placed authority as to the post of the VC that proper respect must be given to the orders of the court.”

First Published: Feb 25, 2006 01:35 IST