High Court sets aside Lala Lajpat Rai vet university V-C’s appointment, raps varsity for unfair stand

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 22

More than two years after Dr Vinod Kumar Verma was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order after rapping the varsity for taking a stand that was far from being fair and reasonable.

Allowing a petition challenging the appointment on the ground of absence of unanimity on the appointment, Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the High Court directed the Vice-Chancellor to demit office forthwith by handing over charge to the senior-most professor in the varsity.

Justice Dahiya made it clear that he would work temporarily till any other arrangement was made by the competent authority. The university was directed to initiate fresh process for making the appointment in accordance with law.

Justice Dahiya observed the government was required to constitute a “board for the management of university”. In case the board was not unanimous regarding selection of a person proposed to be appointed

Vice-Chancellor, “the appointment was to be made by the chancellor on the advice of the government from amongst distinguished veterinarians”.

Justice Dahiya asserted an undisputed fact on record was that an official member of the board from the ICAR did not give his consent to the appointment. It was also not disputed by the varsity that effort was not made to get his opinion/consent during the selection proceedings. It was claimed that he did not express his opinion in any manner, neither through email nor phone, though it was required to be given in the meeting itself. The dissent conveyed vide an email the next day was of no consequence.

“The stand taken by the university is far from being fair and reasonable. Since the respondent-member was present in the meeting virtually, it was incumbent upon the board to take his opinion – consent or dissent – regarding selection of the person proposed to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Instead, the proceedings were concluded in cavalier fashion without bothering to record his opinion which is arbitrary,” Justice Dahiya asserted.

The Bench observed unanimity was to be arrived at among the members attending the meeting, physically or virtually. The responsibility to ensure recording of opinion and/or agreement lay on the board. But admittedly no such effort was made.

It was established that the board deliberately gave scant regard to the mandatory provisions. The varsity’s stand “since no objection was raised, nor was any dissent conveyed during the proceedings, and all the members physically present in the meeting had given their consent, the decision was unanimous”, was fallacious. It was a deliberate attempt to misread the statutory provision in a brazen attempt to justify flagrant violation of law in appointing the Vice-Chancellor.