NAKLI SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. B. Pant Engineering College, an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, appointed the petitioner to the post of Professor (Regular) in its Bio Technology Department by an appointment letter dated 30.10.2005. At that time petitioner was a professor in the Zoology Department in H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar. In the appointment letter, it was mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner is terminable without any reason on three months' notice or pay and allowance in lieu thereof on either side after successful completion of two years' probation period. Petitioner completed two years of probation and thereupon by the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 03.06.2010, the appointment of the petitioner was terminated on payment of three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice.

(2.) In the present writ petition, petitioner is contending that the said condition in the appointment letter is interferable and that since by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 03.06.2010, petitioner has been stigmatised, the same is also intereferable. Petitioner is not a government employee, and accordingly, Article 311 has no application in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is not the contention of the petitioner that any statutory rule governs the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner and that the condition of three months' notice or pay and allowance in lieu thereof is contrary to such rules or statutory terms and conditions of service. That being the situation, petitioner sought to fall back on the philosophy that the said term is an one sided imposition by the employer forced upon taking advantage of lesser bargaining power of the petitioner. We do not think so. Petitioner at the time of his appointment was already a professor. He was appointed by the said appointment letter as a professor, though in a different institution. In such a situation, it is not possible for us to proceed on the basis that the employer institution had a better bargaining power than that of the petitioner at the time when the said term was incorporated in the contract of employment. That being the situation, the one and the only conclusion would be that the said term was inserted to the mutual benefit of the parties to the contract as both had the same option under the contract.

(3.) We accordingly see no reason to interfere with the condition contained in the service contract to the effect that the same is terminable upon notice or pay and allowance in lieu thereof. By the letter dated 03.06.2010, the appointment of the petitioner or his service contract was put to an end by paying three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice, exactly in terms of the contract inter se the parties. However, while doing so it had been mentioned that the petitioner failed to discharge his obligations towards academic responsibilities of the institution. It is, accordingly, being contended that the petitioner has been stigmatised. Petitioner states and the learned counsel appearing in support of petition submits that in such situation, the petitioner ought to have had been given an opportunity to prove his innocence and to establish that he did discharge of his academic responsibilities or was prevented from doing so. It was submitted that in such circumstances, the said order dated 03.06.2010 is intereferable with liberty to the institution to conduct an inquiry on the charge of failure on the part of the petitioner in discharging his academic responsibilities.