J R AGARWAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint of the petitioner is that his services had been terminated without any prior notice to him taking advantage of Rule 49 (2) (v) of the University Non-teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971. He questions the validity of the rule. It is not necessary for us to go into that question. In the present case long before the termination of the services of the petitioner he was repeatedly told by the Principal that if he failed to report for duty he would be treated as absent from duty and make himself liable for all consequences that might ensue therefrom. He was also given an opportunity to get himself examined by the doctor specified in the letter of the Principal. The petitioner neither reported for duty nor came forward for medical examination. We do not see any justification for the complaint of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.