Asst professor moves Gujarat HC over termination of employment, court orders status quo

Granting clip until February 11 to RRU, the tribunal said: “The respondents (RRU) are directed to support presumption quo qua work information of the petitioner arsenic if the employment declaration of the petitioner is not terminated oregon enactment an extremity to”.

In an oral order, Justice Nirzar Desai observed: “There was nary circumstantial bid putting the services of the petitioner to an extremity oregon stating that the petitioner’s declaration is not renewed”.

Jain’s lawsuit is that she was appointed arsenic adjunct prof with the School of Forensics, Risk Management & National Security (SFRMNS), RRU, connected October 29, 2021. The petition claims that her contractual employment was extended thrice until December 31, 2024.  “Because of the non-extension of her service, her students, including Ph.D. students volition endure successful their world work… She is the senior-most module amongst the Forensic Science faculty, moving connected a contractual basis,” the petition states.

Jain, 39, told the tribunal that she was assigned respective assignments during her tenure, including the director-in-charge, SFRMNS, arsenic good arsenic the in-charge adjunct director, and later, caput of medication astatine the School of Behavioural Sciences and Forensic Investigations (SBSFI).

She said that successful August 2023, RRU appointed her arsenic the nodal serviceman for a CDSL-funded probe task nether its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) connected “Prevention of Victimisation from Forgery and Financial Fraud”.

“The full task outlay was Rs 36 lakh for 1 twelvemonth retired of which, the wage for the Forensic Chair (Nodal Officer) was to beryllium Rs 11 lakh per year. The petitioner received Rs 6.87 lakh retired of the full amount. After the completion of her tenure arsenic a nodal officer, the University demanded a refund of Rs 6.87 lakh paid to her for the crushed that she could not get salaries from 2 sources and that she could not person taken different duty portion her declaration with the assemblage subsisted,” the petition states, adding that Jain had allegedly contended with the assemblage that the posting “was not an employment with an outer body”. However, the assemblage allegedly held backmost her wage for 2 months, the petition states, portion besides “downgrading her show assessment”.

The contented escalated erstwhile the assemblage published an advertisement inviting applications for advertisement hoc appointments of world module connected a contractual basis.

Advocate Utkarsh Dave, appearing for Jain, said, “It is an established rule of instrumentality that an advertisement hoc worker cannot beryllium replaced by different advertisement hoc employee, and tin lone beryllium replaced by a regularly appointed worker pursuing the stipulated process for filling a vacancy successful a authorities university. Therefore, this petition has been argued earlier the HC bringing to the fore that the University has violated the established law”.

The advocator appearing for the assemblage asked for clip to record a reply and “put close facts connected record”, the bid states, adding that the assemblage has denied that the station antecedently held by Jain was filled successful by different ad-hoc employee. “Instead, the advocator for the assemblage submitted that the full recruitment process beryllium scrapped. However, determination is nary ceremonial bid passed to that effect,” the tribunal bid states.

© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd