PATEL MANOJ PRAKASHBHAI Vs. GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition preferred under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantial reliefs :

(2.) The factual score that is essential to be depicted is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondentGujarat National Law University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') for the post of "Head Budget, Accounts & Finance/Assistant Finance Officer" in the payscale of Rs.1560039100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/ initially for a period of five years' duration depending upon the performance of the incumbent and the need of the University, the petitioner herein applied for the said post. He underwent the requisite process of selection and was duly selected for getting the appointment letter dated January 02, 2012.

(3.) An affidavitinreply on behalf of the respondentUniversity has been filed by the Registrar, who does not dispute the factum of selection of the petitioner in the year 2012 on the post of "Head Budget, Accounts & Finance/Assistant Finance Officer". However, the version of the University is that the petition suffers from the vice of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi as the material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. According to the respondentUniversity, pursuant to the first advertisement dated September 16, 2011, the petitioner was offered the post of "Head Budget, Accounts & Finance/Assistant Finance Officer" for a fixed term of five years. Consequent upon his acceptance of the said offer, a letter of appointment was issued in his favour on January 02, 2012, which also mentioned that it was for a fixed term of five years on the said post with a condition that on his successful completion of three years, he may be placed in the payscale of Rs.1560039100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/. His first year since was for probation, it was clearly mentioned that this fixed term may be extended as per the Rules of the University, performance criteria as may be fixed by the Executive Council. The letter dated January 02, 2012, reflects the effective date of appointment and expiration date of appointment is indicated as December 31, 2017, instead of January 01, 2017. According to the respondent, from the stand point of administrative convenience of the respondent, December 31 in place of January 01, was to be mentioned in the said letter of appointment and in that case, it would be December 31, 2016 and instead a mistake crept in which is "of a most trifling nature".