N D KANDPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as the Head of the Department (Campus), Chemistry of the respondent University. After he was so appointed, Rule 2.20 of the State of the University was amended on 17.07.2012. The Rule, as it stood earlier and the Rule, as it was amended on 17.07.2012, which is produced as Annexure -2, insofar as it is relevant, reads as under:

(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs A, B and C alone, which are as follows:

(3.) WE heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing for the University. In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner runs as follows: She would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Department on 24.01.2011 being the senior -most in terms of the Rule, as it stood. He was possessed of the legal right to continue when the amendment was made in the Rule. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the amended Rule will apply to the petitioner. The only case, she has, is that the effect of the amendment cannot be that it will effect an intrusion into his right; except that, it will take effect from the date of the amendment. Therefore, in short, the case of the petitioner is that he can continue for a period of three years as provided in the amended Rule from the date of the amendment. In other words, it means that the petitioner can continue as the Head of the Department till 16.07.2015, by calculating three years from the date of the amendment. On the other hand, he stands ousted on the expiry of three years from the date of his appointment as the Head of the Department, which period expired on running out of three years from the date of his appointment, i.e. on 24.01.2011. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Gupta Vs. GlaxoSmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2007 7 SCC 171, as also, in K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala, 1994 5 SCC 593. The relevant portion in C. Gupta Vs. Glaxo -Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which she would rely on, is as follows: