Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has upheld the decision to remove Prof Dr Durga Shankar Pattanaik from the post of Chairperson of the Post Graduate Council (PGC) in Utkal University, dismissing his writ petition challenging the move.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Pattanaik challenging the decision, a single bench of Justice A K Mohapatra held that the post of PGC Chairperson is not an independent service position but an additional administrative responsibility assigned to a professor.
Relieving a professor of such a responsibility does not affect their service conditions, salary, rank or other employment rights, the bench observed in its order.
Notably, Pattanaik was appointed as PGC Chairperson on June 1, 2022, for a two-year term. However, after one year, the university issued an order on May 31, 2023, replacing him with Prof Dr Navaneeta Rath as the new Chairperson.
Challenging the decision, Pattanaik moved the High Court, arguing that he had been removed before the completion of his tenure without being assigned any reason or being given an opportunity to present his case.
However, the university contended that the position of PGC Chairperson is only an administrative assignment. It argued that the appointment order contained the condition “until further orders,” empowering the Vice-Chancellor to change the assignment whenever required in the interest of university administration. It further maintained that the decision was not punitive in nature.
The High Court said that the phrase “until further orders” does not give the Vice-Chancellor unrestricted authority to withdraw the responsibility arbitrarily. At the same time, it ruled that the Vice-Chancellor has the power to make such changes if they are based on genuine administrative requirements.
The court further noted that there was no allegation of corruption, misconduct, irregularity or indiscipline against Pattanaik. It observed that the university’s statement that his administrative performance was not satisfactory did not amount to affecting his service record. Therefore, his removal from the administrative assignment could not be treated as a punitive action.
The bench also took note of the fact that Pattanaik had retired during the pendency of the case and that his original tenure had already expired. As a result, reinstatement was no longer possible. Since he had also not sought financial compensation or any consequential service benefits, the court held that no effective relief could be granted and disposed of the petition.
