K KRISHNA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fate of qualified temporary lecturers who worked as such in the Mysore University presently unemployed hangs in balance in these Writ Appeals.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge in a hard hitting judgment held that the lecturers were not entitled to regularisation and more or less directed that their services be terminated as their appointments were not in accordance with law.

(3.) WE wish to start with the operative portion of the learned Single judge s order which is under appeal before we deal with the facts of the case. It reads as follows:- Conclusion and directions keeping in view the statutory provisions as noticed above and the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, since the petitioner had been given an ad hoc appointment on contract basis in obvious flagrant and blatant violation of the statutory provisions contained under Section 51a of the Act and the statutes framed thereunder by the Vice Chancellor against unsanctioned posts and that too, without following the mandatory procedure of recruitment, her initial entry in the services of the University was illegal and as such as laid down by the Apex Court in Ashwini kumar s case (supra), she cannot claim any regularisation. Moreover, permanent appointments can be made only by a duly constituted Board of Appointments as per Section 49 of the Act on following the procedure provided therein. It has to be clearly borne in mind that, under the provisions of the act, the Vice chancellor has not been given any power of making any permanent appointments. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed with clear directions that :- (i) the Vice Chancellor of the University should not make any appointment either on ad hoc or temporary basis unless there are clear vacancies against sanctioned posts and the procedure as laid down under the statutory provisions as noticed above is strictly complied with. (ii) the State Government must transmit all the statutes pending consideration before it with its comments to the Chancellor within the time frame fixed under Section 36 (4) of the Act. If any time hereinafter, it is found that the University authorities or any political or administrative executives have acted in violation of the above law laid down by this and the Apex Court, then they may run the risk of:- (i) being proceeded with committing contempt of this Court for disobedience of the law-judicially laid down as held by the Supreme Court in the case of BARADAKANTA vs BHIM SEN (AIR 1974 SC 2466) (ii) they may be saddled with exemplary damages keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of COMMON CAUSE vs UNION OF INDIA [ (1996)6 SCC 593] (iii) order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 being public servants within the meaning of section 2 (3) thereof. 33. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the registrars of all the Universities of the State for being placed before respective Vice Chancellors and the Syndicate for their information so as to ensure that if any appointment is made or continued inviolation of the statutory provisions as noticed above, then the same be immediately corrected. 34. A copy of the order may also be made immediately available to Ms. Vidya, learned HCGP, for ensuring the necessary compliance by the State Government. 35. Writ Petition stands dismissed as ordered above, But, without any order as to costs.