Srinagar, Nov 16: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has directed authorities concerned to consider Prof. Abdul Gani’s representation for appointment as Vice Chancellor of the Central University Kashmir within four weeks.

“The instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents (CUK) to consider and decide the representation of petitioner (Gani) within four weeks,” said a bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul adding, “While doing so, they shall also take into account the provisions of Central Universities Act, 2009, including Rule 2(7) to the Second Schedule to the Act and law laid down in Dr. Suman Agarwal v. Vice Chancellor and others, (1996) 1 SCC 632.”

The direction was passed by the court after hearing a plea by Gani through his counsel advocate Firdous A Bhat and senior advocate N.A.Beigh for the varsity.
Bhat submitted that Gani is a senior most in University and, therefore, entitled to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of the varsity.

He invited attention of the Court to the Second Schedule to the Central Universities Act, 2009,provides that the Chancellor shall be appointed by the Visitor from a panel of not less than three persons by the Executive council from amongst persons of eminence in the academic or public life of the country.

“Rule 2 envisions appointment of a Vice-Chancellor out of a panel recommended by the Committee. Rule 2 (7) envisages that if the office of Vice Chancellor becomes vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise, or if he is unable to perform his duties due to ill-health or any other cause, the Pro-Vice Chancellor shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor,” he submitted, adding, “However, if the Pro-Vice Chancellor is not available, the senior most Professor shall perform the duties of Vice Chancellor until a new Vice-Chancellor assumes office.”

He said the present incumbent to the post was “junior Professor and his placement as In-charge Vice Chancellor has undermined the seniority of (GAni) and has as well simultaneously violated the provisions of the Act of 2009”.

Senior counsel Beigh stated that the representation made by Gani has not been disposed of so far and the same would be decided.

To this, counsel for petitioner said that consideration and deciding of Gani’s representation may be directed to be undertaken within fixed timeframe. gns