the truth exposed by RTI: a historic fraud two decades in the making.
March 16, 2026 : Varanasi. At Banaras Hindu University, an organized administrative crime has been ongoing for the past twenty years, rooted in a legal lie. The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 — collectively known as the CCS/CCA Conduct Rules — were never adopted by BHU's Executive Council.
It must be noted that in BHU, only the Executive Council has the authority to legally amend the Statutes and Ordinances or adopt new laws. No law can be enforced at BHU without its approval.
These rules were never implemented by the Executive Council — constitutionally, statutorily, or judicially. Yet they were wielded as weapons to intimidate, threaten, suspend, and dismiss over 500 teachers and employees.
At the root of this entire conspiracy lies the notorious letter dated July 13, 2007, issued by the then-Registrar of BHU without any legal authority and without the approval of the Executive Council.
Part One — The Truth Revealed by RTI That Changes Everything
The Executive Council Never Adopted the CCS Conduct Rules
An RTI application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has brought to light a shocking and decisive fact:
BHU's Executive Council has never passed any resolution by which the CCS Conduct Rules 1964 or the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 were made applicable to BHU's teachers or employees.
In response to the RTI, the BHU administration could not produce any Executive Council resolution, statutory amendment, or ordinance that applied these rules to BHU. This is a historic admission.
Under the structure of the BHU Act, 1915, any rule, statute, or condition of service is legally valid only when the Executive Council formally adopts it. Section 15 grants the Executive Council this power, and Sections 28, 31, and 32 specify that service conditions can only be determined through statutes and ordinances. Since the Executive Council never adopted the CCS Conduct Rules, those rules never came into existence at BHU. Enforcing non-existent rules and punishing people on that basis is in itself a criminal act.
Part Two — The Registrar's Illegal Letter: The Root of the Entire Conspiracy
Letter No. R/VCS/07-08/437, dated July 13, 2007 — A Legal Fraud
The entire conspiracy began with the letter issued by the then-Registrar of BHU bearing the above reference number.
To understand what this letter did: In 1998, the UGC, via ECR-625 dated May 19–20, 1998, had recommended pay revision for non-teaching staff only, in accordance with the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The mention of CCS Revised Pay Rules in that context was limited to pay structure — not conduct or discipline.
However, the Registrar's letter of July 13, 2007, committed a grave legal deception. It presented that limited UGC directive on pay revision for non-teaching staff as though the CCS Conduct Rules 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 had been made applicable to all university employees, including teachers. Four fundamental frauds were committed in this letter:
First Fraud — Pay revision rules were presented as conduct and discipline rules. These are two entirely different legal instruments, and presenting one as the other is clear legal fraud.
Second Fraud — A UGC directive meant only for non-teaching staff was portrayed as applicable to teachers. ECR-625 was explicitly about pay revision for non-teaching employees. The pay structure for teachers is governed by academic pay regulations entirely separate from the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations.
Third Fraud — The Registrar did what only the Executive Council could do. BHU's constitution grants the Registrar no authority to create new rules or impose external ones. The Registrar is an administrative officer, not a legislative authority.
Fourth Fraud — This letter was issued without any Executive Council resolution. No statutory amendment was made, no ordinance was passed, and no approval from the Executive Council was obtained. An attempt was made to alter the entire university's service conditions through a single administrative circular.
This letter was void and invalid from its very inception. Every action taken on its basis carries the same nullity.
Part Three — Binding Judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts
Judgment One — Dr. Suchitra Mitra v. Union of India
A direct and decisive ruling on the non-applicability of CCS Conduct Rules to teachers of central universities.
This judgment is the cornerstone of the entire dispute. The court was asked precisely the question being raised at BHU — whether CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules apply to teachers of central universities.
The court thoroughly examined the definition of "Government servant" under the CCS Conduct Rules, which includes persons who are members of a service or hold civil posts under the Union, persons on foreign service or temporarily appointed under a state government or local authority, or persons serving under a local or other authority whose services are temporarily placed under the Central Government.
After detailed examination, the court delivered its landmark ruling:
"University Professors are neither members of any service nor holders of civil posts under the Union, nor are they in the service of any local or other authority. Therefore, the CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules will have no application to any Central University."
This judgment is most relevant to BHU because it answers precisely the question that arose from the illegal circular of July 13, 2007. In its light, that circular and every disciplinary proceeding based on it is judicially void as well.
Judgment Two — Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420
The Supreme Court was asked whether the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has jurisdiction over service matters of central university employees. The Supreme Court clearly and finally held that CAT has no jurisdiction over service matters of central university employees.
The relevance to BHU lies in this unassailable legal chain: under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, CAT's jurisdiction applies only to persons in the civil service of the Union or holding civil posts under the Union. CAT jurisdiction and the applicability of CCS Conduct Rules are inseparable — where one exists, the other must too, and where one does not, neither can the other. Since the Supreme Court held that CAT has no jurisdiction, the logical and necessary conclusion is that the CCS Conduct Rules also do not apply.
This is not merely an academic argument — it is a binding judgment of the Supreme Court of India that no administrative circular, Registrar's order, or Vice-Chancellor's directive can overturn.
Allahabad High Court — BHU's Direct Jurisdiction Court
The Allahabad High Court has, in numerous cases, clearly held that service conditions of BHU employees are governed only by the BHU Act, Statutes, and Ordinances. External rules cannot be imposed on BHU employees without amending the statutes or ordinances. Disciplinary proceedings initiated under CCS (CCA) conduct procedures are liable to be set aside.
Part Four — Eight Independent Levels of Legal Impossibility
Beyond the above judgments, the applicability of CCS Conduct Rules to BHU is impossible at eight independent levels of legal analysis.
Level 1 — Constitutional Impossibility: The CCS Conduct Rules derive from Article 309, which applies to civil posts under the Union. BHU teachers and employees do not hold any civil post under the Union. The constitutional basis is absent.
Level 2 — Statutory Impossibility: The BHU Act, 1915, is a special law that constitutes a complete code. The CCS Conduct Rules are general law. Under the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, special law always prevails over general law. Statutory authority is absent.
Level 3 — Definitional Impossibility: The CCS Conduct Rules apply to "Government servants" by their own definition. University teachers and employees are not Government servants even by the rules' own definition. Definitional scope is absent.
Level 4 — Jurisdictional Impossibility: The Supreme Court has established that CAT has no jurisdiction over central university employees. The CCS framework and CAT jurisdiction are inseparable. Jurisdictional basis is absent.
Level 5 — UGC Authority Impossibility: The UGC's full name is the University Grants Commission, not the University Conduct Standards Commission. The UGC Act, 1956, grants the UGC no authority to impose conduct rules. ECR-625 was only about pay revision for non-teaching staff, not conduct rules. UGC authority is absent.
Level 6 — Constitutional Rights Impossibility: Applying CCS Conduct Rules to teachers and employees violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21. The Supreme Court held in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) that prior restraints on expression are constitutionally impermissible.
Level 7 — Administrative Law Impossibility: The Registrar's circular cannot amend University Statutes. Only the Executive Council can change service conditions through amendments to ordinances. The letter of July 13, 2007, was void from the beginning for this very reason. Administrative authority is absent.
Level 8 — Vested Rights Impossibility: Teachers and employees have vested rights under the University Statutes. The Supreme Court held in National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan (1998) that legitimate expectations created by statutory frameworks cannot be arbitrarily denied by executive action. Vested rights protection entirely bars the application.
Part Five — Twenty Years of Organized Administrative Crime
500+ Victims — A Dark History
What the BHU administration has done over the past twenty years, using that single illegal circular as its basis, is unimaginable in any democratic and constitutional system.
Over 500 teachers and employees were illegally intimidated and threatened. Many teachers were suspended under CCS Conduct Rules that were never applicable to them. Several teachers and employees were illegally dismissed from service. Those who spoke out against the administration's corruption and misconduct were silenced using these very rules. Academic freedom and freedom of expression were systematically crushed. The university's democratic structures were dismantled and governance was conducted arbitrarily.
All of this was possible because, using that illegal circular as a shield, the administration kept teachers and employees under the false impression that CCS Conduct Rules applied to them — when in truth, they never did.
Since all these actions are based on a law that never applied to BHU, every disciplinary proceeding, every suspension order, and every dismissal order over these twenty years is not only void and invalid from the beginning but also falls into the category of a punishable criminal act.
Part Six — Current Guilty Officials
This organized administrative crime is being perpetuated at present by the following officials, whose own appointments are also legally questionable and irregular:
Vice-Chancellor — Prof. Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi: The highest administrative authority of this entire illegal system, under whose tenure this crime continues unabated.
Registrar — Prof. Arun Kumar Singh: The primary administrative officer issuing illegal charge-sheets, suspension orders, and dismissal orders.
Deputy Registrar — Mr. Rajit Shandilya: Directly complicit in the execution of these illegal actions.
Deputy Registrar — Mr. Velu G: Another active participant in this same illegal apparatus.
All these officials knew, or ought to have known, that the CCS Conduct Rules do not apply to BHU. Continuing to use these rules as weapons despite that knowledge constitutes a deliberate and premeditated criminal act.
Part Seven — Our Demands and Ultimatum
Final One-Week Ultimatum
If Prof. Ajit Kumar Chaturvedi, Prof. Arun Kumar Singh, Mr. Rajit Shandilya, and Mr. Velu G do not resign from their respective posts and issue public apologies within one week of the date of this press release, then:
Criminal cases will be filed against all of them in a competent court.
A detailed memorandum will be submitted to the Central Government and the President of India, who is the Visitor of BHU.
The list of all aggrieved teachers and employees will be made public and their cases will be taken to court.
Additional Demands
All disciplinary proceedings, suspension orders, and dismissal orders passed on the basis of CCS Conduct Rules over the past twenty years must be immediately annulled.
All dismissed and suspended teachers and employees must be immediately reinstated and paid all dues.
The BHU administration must formally acknowledge that CCS Conduct Rules were never applicable to BHU.
The Central Government and UGC must order a high-level independent inquiry into this organized administrative crime.
In Closing — The Fight to Save the Soul of BHU
BHU is not merely a university — it is the center of India's intellectual, cultural, and national consciousness. Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya founded this university so that knowledge could flow freely here, academic freedom could flourish, and the courage to speak the truth would prevail. That dream has been assaulted by an illegal administrative circular and two decades of suppression built upon it.
We urge the judiciary to take suo motu cognizance of these illegal proceedings.
We urge Parliament to take concrete legislative steps to protect academic autonomy in central universities.
We urge the media to give this matter the attention it deserves and to carry the voices of aggrieved teachers and employees to every corner of the country.
We urge civil society and academics to extend their moral support to this fight for academic freedom and freedom of expression.
Truth shall prevail. The illegal system shall end. The soul of BHU shall be reborn.
