TARUN KUMAR ROY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the letter dated 16th August, 2007 issued by the respondent no. 2 terminating his services. It has been further prayed in the writ petition that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1st April, 2005 a post by the name of Nature Education Officer was advertised in the Bio-diversity Park of DDA, a programme supported by Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, School of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi. The petitioner applied for the said post and he was selected vide letter dated 27th June, 2005. The petitioner was offered the appointment as Nature Education Officer in the aforesaid Project. It was specifically mentioned that he would get consolidated salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and the appointment would be temporary but is likely to be continue. On 14th July, 2005 the petitioner sent his acceptance to the said offer of appointment and joined on 28th July, 2005. The case of the petitioner is that on 16th August, 2007 Prof. C. R. Babu, Project-in-Charge, Yamuna Biodiversity Park issued a letter to the petitioner that w.e.f 1st September, 2007 petitioner's services are no longer required, and therefore, he must handover any permanent items issued against his name.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that the aforesaid order is bad law. Firstly, it is alleged that the aforesaid order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice that one months notice in writing before the termination of his services under Section 5 sub section 2 of the Temporary Servant Rules ought to have been given. Secondly, the said impugned order is challenged on the ground that it is achieved by malafides and arbitrariness. It is alleged that the petitioner has been victimized and order of termination has been passed selectively. The petitioner has made some allegations of malafides against Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Field Biologist in the same Project who was impleaded as respondent no. 4. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent no. 4 is a powerful person and very close to the Project Director who physically assaulted and humiliated the petitioner in the presence of other staff members and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Lastly, impugned order is challenged on the ground that the petitioner was offered appointment as a Nature Education Officer by Deputy Registrar, University of Delhi while as his services are sought to be terminated by Prof. C. R. Babu, Project-in-Charge who himself is subordinate to the Deputy Registrar, and therefore, not competent to issue the termination letter.