KM MADHURI SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: -

(2.) BRIEF facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioners Km. Madhuri Sharma, Km. Aparajita Bhattacharya and Navneet Sharma were appointed as Lecturer on temporary basis in Uttaranchal Open University, Haldwani vide letters dated 28th October, 2006, 1st November, 2006 and 29th October, 2006 issued by respondent No.

(3.) -Registrar of the University respectively. It was further alleged in the petition that the Vice Chancellor of the university terminated the services of a Class IV employee arbitrary manner and thereafter the employees of the University got agitated and went on strike. The strike was called off when the matter came to an end after an assurance given by the Registrar of the University. It was further alleged that on 26th December, 2006, the petitioners Km. Madhuri Sharma and Km. Aparajita Bhattacharya were called by the respondent No. 2 -Vice Chancellor to discuss about the expert committee meeting but they were subjected to sexual harassment there. The petitioners moved complaint to the Registrar of the University but he refused to accept the complaint and did not take any action. The petitioners informed their colleagues about this incident and they decided to raise voice against the misbehaviour of the Vice Chancellor. Thereafter, the petitioners were terminated from their services on 28th December, 2006 by the Registrar of the University in an arbitrary manner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to them. It was further alleged that the termination orders of the petitioners were in violation of natural justice because the termination orders were not termination simpliciter. It was further alleged that the Vice Chancellor of the University called a press conference and gave a press note about the termination of the petitioners in order to defame them. It was further alleged that as per the provisions of Uttaranchal Open University Act, 2005, there must be reasoned order of the termination of any employee. It was further alleged that the Registrar has no power to pass the termination order without giving show cause notice as per the rules. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and pleaded that the petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis for fixed period and their appointment would have come to an end on 28.02.2007. It was further pleaded that as per the appointment order, the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice. It was further pleaded that after receiving the termination orders, the petitioners have sent a complaint dated 26.12.2006 by post. It was further pleaded that the petitioners have made complaint dated 02/01/2007 and 03/01/2007 before the State Womens Commission and National Womens Commission against the respondent No. 4. It was further pleaded that the petitioners were making all sorts of desperate attempts to defame the respondent No. 4 after their termination. The petitioners have filed false criminal complaint against the respondent No. 4 only to put pressure on him to withdraw their termination orders. It was further pleaded that whenever the petitioners were entering in the University premises creating a law and order problem. At last, it was pleaded that the petitioners have filed the writ petition by making false and misleading averments against the respondent No. 4, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.