"Conduct Of HoD Needs To Be Blemish Free": Delhi HC Dismisses Professor's Plea Over Non Appointment As HoD After Sexual Harassment Complaint By Teacher
Observing that the conduct of a Teacher as an HoD need to be blemish-free, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by a senior professor of the Delhi University aggrieved over his non appointment as the Head of Chemistry Department after a sexual harassment complaint was made against him by a Teacher."The conduct of a Professor / Teacher as an HoD, who is required to involve himself in...
Observing that the conduct of a Teacher as an HoD need to be blemish-free, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea by a senior professor of the Delhi University aggrieved over his non appointment as the Head of Chemistry Department after a sexual harassment complaint was made against him by a Teacher.
"The conduct of a Professor / Teacher as an HoD, who is required to involve himself in various activities of the Department, which includes interacting with the students and the teachers, need to be blemish-free," Justice V Kameswar Rao observed.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Professor RK Sharma, challenging the appointment of some other professor as the Head of Department. It was his case that being the senior most Professor in the University, he was entitled to be appointed as an HoD of the Chemistry Department.
It was however the case of the University that pursuant to a complaint of sexual harassment made by a Teacher with regards to certain Professors, including the petitioner, who were part of the Interview Committee, the Internal Complaint Committees were formed, which did not find anything against the petitioner inasmuch as, they had exonerated him.
Pursuant to finding of the third committee, the University had issued a communication dated October 01, 2021 warning the petitioner for the misconduct and also directing him to not participate in the interviews of the complainant in future, in order maintain fairness in the selection process. The said communication was however not challenged by the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the warning is not a penalty under the Conduct Rules and that there was no bar for the University to consider the petitioner's case for appointment as an HoD.
On the other hand, Advocate Santosh Kumar appearing for the University submitted that under Ordinance XXIII of the University, there was no compulsion to appoint the senior-most Professor if there are good valid reasons.
"It is noted, in view of the communication dated October 01, 2021, which I have reproduced as above, based on the complaint made by the complainant, resulting in the report of the Internal Complaint Committee, against certain Teachers, who were part of the Interview Board including the petitioner, the decision of the Executive Council is that the petitioner be warned for the misconduct committed by him," the Court noted.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had accepted the communication dated October 01, 2021 and had not challenged the same.
The Court was of the view that in terms of Ordinance XXIII of the University, it gives discretion to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint a Head of the Department.
"did ponder on the issue, whether the matter need to be remanded back to the Vice-Chancellor for him to take a call in the given facts of this case, but in view of the above and the petitioner has not challenged the communication dated October 01, 2021, this Court is of the view that in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers as prayed for by the petitioner, cannot be granted," the Court said at the outset.
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.
Title: PROF. R. K. SHARMA v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.