GU tribunal quashes HoD8217;s appointment

The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the University that the application became infructuous since Patel retired in October 1997. The Tribunal remarked that Bhatt was wrongly appointed by the university, and that if her appointment was not quashed, it would amount to giving a go-ahead to GU8217;s illegal action.

The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the petitioner made five representations quoting the Supreme Court judgment, but the university did not act. The Tribunal observed that it was the university8217;s duty to apply its mind and seek the opinion of an advocate if necessary. If an autonomous body like university does not act upon its illegal action, such an inactiveness needs to be deprecated. The Tribunal also observed that if such an inaction is not disapproved of, authorities get a licence to repeat such action and may even continue to be inactive at the cost of its employees8217; fundamental rights.

The Tribunal also asked GU to pay Rs 2,500 towards cost. Advocate Dinesh Shah appeared for Professor Patel.