DSW row: Punjab and Haryana HC stays single bench order on holding Senate meet

The university had removed Professor Nahar and Professor Neena Caplash from their position of DSWs on August 22 while citing a purported Senate decision. Nahar and at least four senators challenged the decision submitting that the majority of the members were in favour of the extension but Vice-Chancellor Raj Kumar closed the proceedings of the Senate in haste and called for playing the national anthem, “with the objective of defeating the demand of voting”. The Senate “resolution” cited and produced later before court by the university was called into question. Justice Arun Monga in an interim order on September 2 stayed the decision on removal of the DSWs and restored Nahar’s position while also calling for a Senate meet within a week.

PU asserts V-C’s authority, says senators ‘live somewhere else’

The counsel representing PU Friday submitted before the court that the “resolution” claimed to have been signed by the 48 members of the Senate for extension to Nahar is merely a “piece of paper” and challenged the single bench order saying that the same amounts to deciding Nahar’s petition fully at a prima facie, interim stage of the case. It was also argued that DSW is merely an administrative charge with no extra benefits attached to the office.

“Senators are living somewhere else. I (V-C) have to run the university. I need my people,” said a counsel representing PU, adding that they, the Senate members, are some MLAs and Bar members. “I have lost confidence in these people (referring to existing DSWs). We do not want the V-C to be toothless.”

Apparently referring to the recent student elections in which DSW Nahar was incharge, the counsel representing PU also remarked before the court that “the election is over. He has done his job”. Pertinently, the PU in its appeal has questioned Nahar’s position as a general secretary of the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee.

The counsel representing the university also asserted that, as the per the PU statute, the Vice-Chancellor’s recommendation is necessary along with the recommendation of the Syndicate for appointment of DSWs by the Senate. In Nahar’s case, 14 members of the Syndicate supported the recommendation for his extension and V-C Raj Kumar was the lone dissenting voice in the governing body.

Does democracy work like this?

The counsel representing Nahar during the hearing submitted that the Senate had to take a decision over the Syndicate recommendation but the “V-C has hijacked the proceedings because he did not allow the Senate’s majority to prevail”. “How will democracy work?” submitted the counsel, adding that the V-C played the national anthem and did not allow the senators to vote over the recommendation for Nahar’s extension during the August 22 meet. The counsel also submitted that it is evident that the PU does not want to comply with the directions regarding the fresh Senate meet.

HC has questions too

The division bench of Justices Rakesh Kumar Jain and Arun Kumar Tyagi Friday expressed their mind to delve into a university rule regarding the DSW appointments that whether it is necessary for the Syndicate recommendation to have the backing of the V-C or the majority of the Syndicate will have a say, irrespective of the V-C’s yes or no. The counsel representing PU also submitted that the statute has to be interpreted even though they have been arguing that V-C and all other members of Syndicate are on an equal footing even if he is part of the same Syndicate. The court asked how the DSW is going to be elected under such circumstances where the Syndicate is agreeing and the V-C is disagreeing.