By our Staff Reporter
GUWAHATI, July 15: A section of staff of GU terms the Principal of Gauhati University Law College a legal eagle. They have smelt a rat in the Principal getting his service tenure extended by five years.
It was on May 22, 2017 GU Registrar sent an office order to the Principal of the Law College, Dr. Jyoti Prasad Bora, informing him that his date of superannuation due to the attainment of 60 years of age was on June 30, 2017 and as such he would retire from the university service on June 30, 2017.
In his office order the Registrar also asked Dr. Bora to arrange for the submission of clearance certificate from GU Fince Officer, clearance certificate from the GU administrative head concerned, clearance certificate from GU Estate Officer and clearance certificate from GU’s KKH Library librarian so as to eble the University to release of his retirement benefits early.
However, in a surprising development the Executive Council of the University met on June 24, 2017 and extended the superannuation of the Principal of the law college for five years, i.e. till the attainment of 65 years of age. The resolution taken by the executive council of the meeting superseded the office order issued by GU Registrar on June 22, 2017.
It seems to a smooth and hassle-free development. However, a section staff of the law college of the University smells a rat in the entire development. They say that the Principal of the University Law College is an administrative head, not an academic one in accordance with the Gauhati University Act. “The selection procedure of principals by a selection committee is not like that of teachers. It’s like that of officers. Unlike teachers, people appointed on administrative post have no right to avail the benefit of extension of service. The principal cannot be a head of the department under the GU Act. The prerequisite qualification of an HOD under GU Act is one must be a reader or a professor. However, Dr. Jyoti Prasad Bora was neither a reader nor a professor at time of being appointed as the Principal of the Law College. He was only a lecturer. He is administrative head of the college, not academic. Since he’s neither a reader nor a professor he can’t avail the extension of his service tenure.”
