MOHAMMAD YASIN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR SRINAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for review of our judgment, dated November 5, 1973*.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on probation as a Reader in the University of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar in September, 1965. His period of probation was extended for one year more by an Order dated November 18, 1968 of the Vice-Chancellor. He executed an agreement of service with the University in the prescribed form. On June 26, 1969 a complaint of serious misconduct was received against him. The Central Council of the University cause the service of a charge-sheet on him, and an enquiry was held into those charges. The Enquiry Officer, Shri J. N. Bhan submitted his report on September 5, 1969 holding the petitioner substantially guilty. Coincidentally, on the same date viz., September 5, 1969 the Jammu and Kashmir University ordinance, 1969 was promulgated by the Governor establishing two separate Universities, one for Jammu and the other for Kashmir. Section 52 of that Ordnance inter alia laid down that within sixty days from the commencement of the Ordinance, the services of the teachers employed on contract basis were to cease unless otherwise ordered by the Chancellor. No such order was issued by the Chancellor extending the petitioner's employment. The Vice-Chancellor obviously in ignorance of this provision (Section 52) allowed the petitioner to continue in the employment. On December 20, 1969, the Vice-Chancellor on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer served a notice on the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted an explanation which was considered by the University Council and a decision was taken to remove him from service on payment of one month's salary.

(3.) The petitioner then filed a writ application in the High Court of that State under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for setting aside his dismissal. As observed by the High Court in its judgment, "the case of both the parties was that the appointment of the petitioner as Professor was on contract basis." The High Court accepted the petition and declared the dismissal of the petitioner inoperative and of no effect the eye of law on the ground that the service of the petitioner (who had admittedly been employed on contract basis) had ceased by the operation of Section 52 (4) of the Ordinance and the Act of 1969 on November 5, 1969 i.e. sixty days after the commencement of the Ordinance and the order of his dismissal made after that date had also lapsed. The High Court, however, held that from the facts and circumstances of case, a fresh appointment of the petitioner as Professor and Head of Department of History of the new University of Kashmir by an implied contract could be spelled out; and once that position was reached, the termination of the petitioner's employment not being in accordance with the terms of the statutory regulations, was bad.