Dr. Puneeta Ajmera v. Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University & Ors

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 8289/2024 & CM APPL. 34035/2024 (Interim Stay)

3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ for setting aside the Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2024 issued against the Petitioner. (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ granting an opportunity to the Petitioner for personal hearing before the concerned committee prior to final order.

(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate

Writ granting a protection period of 30 days to the Petitioner take appropriate legal remedy in case the final order of removal is passed by the Respondents.

(d) Any other relief as may be granted by this Hon’ble

4. The controversy in the present writ petition is similar to the one which had been raised before this Court in the case of Dr. Minakshi Garg vs. Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University & Ors [W.P.(C) No. 6853/2024], as also Dr. Harvinder Popli vs. Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University & Ors [W.P.(C) NO. 6946/2024]. Both of which were disposed of on 14.05.2024 and 15.05.2024 respectively.

5. Without going into the merits as were noted in the previous judgements, suffice it to state that in the present case, the petitioner has already tendered her detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs in terms of judgment of this Court in Dr. Harvinder Popli (supra) as noted above and applicable to the petitioner are as under: “8. Having said that, however, it will be relevant to keep in mind the conditions as stipulated in clause (ii) of University grants Commission guidelines 2018, which stipulates as under:

“II. Associate Professor: i) A good academic record, with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines. ii) A Master’s Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale, wherever the grading system is followed). iii) A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/industry with a minimum of seven publications in the peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals and a total research score of Seventy five (75) as per the criteria given in-Appendix III, Table 2. iv) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology mediated teaching learning process.” (emphasis supplied)

9. In fact the Show Cause Notice also refers to the said sub- Clause (iii) while levelling the charges of the petitioner not having the essential qualification.

10. The question to be considered would be the interplay of the words "and/or" as appearing in the eligibility conditions stipulated by the UGC. In view of the fact that the petitioner was in service of the respondent for a period of eight years, it would be just and appropriate to grant protection post the order to be passed by the Competent Authority for a period of 10 days from the said date for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievance.

11. It is informed that the time to file the reply to the show cause notice is expiring on 16.05.2024. The petitioner is therefore granted ten days time to file her substantive reply. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the reply holistically taking into consideration that the petitioner was in fact employed by the University previously as also the fact that after having verified each and every document and testimonies the petitioner was confirmed in the year 201. The Competent Authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The date, time and venue will be intimated well in advance.

12. The Competent Authority shall keep in mind the interplay of the words 'and / or' as employed in the UGC guidelines while passing this order.” (emphasis supplied)

6. Since the issues raised in the present writ petition are similar to the ones which have been raised earlier in the judgements noted above, apart from the directions being made applicable to the present petitioners too, the petitioner would also be granted the same protection of 10 days post the order to be passed by the Competent Authority to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievances.

7. With the above observation the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Pending application also stands disposed of.