NAND KISHORE SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this writ petition by the Petitioner who was working as Principal of the Haryana Sanskrit Vidyapeeth (,,HSV), Respondent No. 4, is to an order dated 31st January 1992 issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee (`MC) of HSV in Palwal, District Faridabad in Haryana, terminating the Petitioners services. THE Petitioner also challenges the charge sheet dated 15th July 1991 and the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer (`EO) (impleaded as Respondent No. 5). THE Petitioner prays for the consequential relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and arrears of wages.

(2.) SEVERAL years after this Court had issued Rule in 1997 the Petitioner filed CM No. 1465 of 2007 seeking to amend the writ petition. The purpose of the amendment was to implead the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan (`RSS), Janak Puri, New Delhi through its Director as Respondent No. 6. It was stated that after filing of the present writ petition, the HSV on 3rd February 1999 one Prof. Sureshwar Sharma was appointed to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry. Prof. Sharma submitted his report to the management of the HSV on 27th March 1999 exonerating the Petitioner and recommending his reinstatement. A copy of the said report was annexed (as Annexure P-32). It was resolved by the HSV on 14th December 1999 to reinstate the Petitioner but it was stated that the said decision will be implemented only after approval by Respondent No. 6. It was stated that Respondent No. 6 did not take any decision for more than six years despite representations by the Petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer was sought to be added directing Respondent No. 6 to approve the decision dated 14th December 1999 of the MC of the HSV. This amendment was allowed by this Court on 5th November 2008.

(3.) AT the outset, it requires to be noticed that HSV has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition. It is submitted that the HSV is neither a statutory corporation nor an authority owned and controlled by the Government of India (`GoI) but only an establishment constituted by way of a scheme framed by the GoI. It is pointed out that the HSV is a separate entity with its own set of regulations. Secondly, it is submitted that the services of the Petitioner were purely contractual and the Petitioner cannot enforce a contract by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, it is submitted that the cause of action for the present writ petition has arisen in the State of Haryana as the Petitioner was working as Principal at the HSV at Baghola, Palwal, District Faridabad in Haryana. Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Fourthly, it is submitted that the petition is full of false statements and conceals material facts. It is stated that the Petitioner was working as a Sanskrit teacher in a Government High School prior to his joining as Principal in HSV. On the basis of the certificates submitted by him, which later were found to be forged, the MC of the HSV issued him an appointment letter on 14th June 1989 in response to which the Petitioner joined duties on 19th June 1989.