VARANASEYA SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA Vs. RAJKISHORE TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was initially appointed as an Accountant on 10th July, 1969, in the Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the University). On 4th December, 1969, he was transferred to another post, that of a "Senior Assistant". In January, 1970, Dr. Shambu Nath Singh, who was the permanent Lecturer in Hindi in the University proceeded on long leave, and the plaintiff-respondent, being already in the service of the University, was asked to teach classes for the time being. Applications were invited for filling up the post of Dr. Singh. The advertisement said that the appointment was to be temporary but likely to be made permanent later. The plaintiff-respondent, who was already officiating, also applied. He was temporarily appointed on 25th February, 1970. On 23rd April, 1970, the Registrar of the University gave the plaintiff-respondent a notice that his temporary appointment would terminate on 30th April, 1970. The plaintiff-respondent promptly brought his first suit in the Court of Munsif City, Varanasi, to restrain the University from appointing any one else in his place; but, this suit was ultimately dismissed. On 15th July, 1970, Dr. Singh had resigned from his post so that the permanent, vacancy was there to be filled up. At that time, the plaintiff's suit, mentioned above, was still pending. A Selection Committee of the University interviewed candidates, including the plaintiff respondent on 2nd November, 1970, and submitted a list of names for appointment to the post. In this list, the plaintiff-respondent's name was placed first. As the Executive Committee of the University was not in session, it appears that the Vice-Chancellor appointed the plaintiff on 1st February, 1971, on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee. The Vice-Chancellor purported to act under Section 13, sub-section (7) of the Varanasaya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidalaya Adhiniyam, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Executive Committee of the University then passed a resolution on 17th or 18th March, 1971, approving what it assumed to be the recommendation of the Selection Committee to appoint the plaintiff-respondent temporarily. It also decided to advertise for the post again. On 10th April, 1971, the plaintiff-respondent was informed by the Registrar of University, communicating the decision of the Executive Committee, that his appointment was to continue only upto the end of the current academic session. On 15th May, 1971, the plaintiff-respondent filed his second suit, now before us, for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant University from terminating his services. This suit was dismissed by an Additional Civil Judge. On an appeal, it was decreed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge of Varanasi. The High Court of Allahabad, in second appeal, affirmed the judgment and order under appeal before it. The defendant University is now before this Court by grant of special leave to appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondent was:firstly, that the vacancy in which he was to be appointed being permanent and the procedure of appointment through a Selection Committee being meant for permanent appointments the plaintiff-respondent was actually recommended for a permanent appointment, but, there had been alteration and interpolation in the recommendation of the Selection Committee so as to make it appeal that the recommendation was only for a temporary appointment; secondly, that the Vice-Chancellor, in any case, had the power to make a permanent appointment under Section 13, sub-section (7) of the Act and he had done so; fourthly, that the plaintiff-respondent's appointment being complete and permanent, the Executive Committee of the University had no power left to nullify it; and, lastly, that the authorities of the University, that is to say the Vice-Chancellor and the Executive Committee, had (in the words used by the plaintiff-respondent):

(3.) The Trial Court had held that even if there had been an interpolation of the word temporary in the recommendation of the Selection Committee for a proposed appointment, it did not affect the result because the Vice-Chancellor had neither the power to make a permanent appointment nor had he done so by means of his order dated 1st February, 1971, which merely said that the plaintiff-respondent was appointed to lecture without specifying whether the appointment was to be temporary or permanent.