B ILANGO Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: ". . . to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent in g. O. Ms,nos. 909 and 910, Education (J1), dated 27. 9. 1993 and quash the said g. Os. and consequently issue a mandamus fore bearing the respondents from interfering with the right of the petitioner to continue as Principal till the expiry of the contract period of five years from 13. 7. 1990 to 12. 7. 1995. . . "

(2.) THE facts are: THE Regional Engineering College , thiruchirapalli invited applications for the post of Principal of the Regional Engineering College , thiruchirapalli in the year 1990. In terms of the advertisement the appointment of the Principal was on the contract basis for one term of five years. THE petitioner herein, who was working as Officer on Special Duty, Education department, Madras, and prior to that he was working as Professor and Head of the Department of Electrical and Electronics Department, Anna University, madras, applied for the said post, mentioned above. THE petitioner was called for an interview by letter dated 7. 7. 1990 and the petitioner was informed that his appointment to the post of Principal, Regional Engineering College had been approved by the Board of Governors the second respondent herein, with the concurrence of the State and Central Government and that the appointment was on contract basis for one period of five years from the date of taking charge. THE said letter was addressed to the Principal-in-charge, Regional Engineering college, Tiruchirapalli and a copy of the same was marked to the petitioner. THE petitioner alleged in the affidavit that he was relieved from Anna university and joined as Principal, Regional Engineering College, thiruchirapalli with effect from 16. 7. 1990. THE petitioner further alleges the affidavit that by G. O. Ms. No. 662, Education, dated 13. 6. 1991, the Government directed that the petitioner has been appointed as Principal Regional engineering College, Trichy on contract basis under General Rule 11 of the tamil Naidu State and Subordinate Service Rules and he shall be governed by the terms and conditions mentioned in Annexure, annexed to that order. Referring to clauses 14 and 15 of the terms and conditions governing the contract appointment which have been shown in the annexed thereto in the said Government order, the petitioner alleges that he was to have continued for a period of five years,upto 13. 7. 1995. While it is so, it seems that impugned order dated 27. 9. 1993 in G. O. No. 909, Education Department came to be passed, by which the petitioner was informed that the Board of Governors chaired by the Tamil Nadu education Minister held at its 42nd meeting held on 15. 6. 1993 resolved to adopt the suggestion of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India and therefore it has been decided to reduce the term of appointment as principal, Regional Engineering College, Thiruchirapalli as three years. It is stated that in pursuance of that, the first respondent herein proceeded to unilaterally substitute condition No. 14 of the terms of appointment by reducing the period of appointment from 5years to 3years. It is also stated that by g. O. Ms. No. 910, Education, dated 27. 9. 1993, the first respondent directed that the petitioner was relieved of the duty as Principal and that he should handover charge to Dr. C. R. Kandaswamy, Dean, Planning and Development Department regional Engineering College, Thiruchirapalli. THE petitioner also alleges in the affidavit that he is yet to handover charge. It is also stated that on enquiries he was furnished with a copy of the minutes of the 42nd meeting of the Board of Governors held on 15. 6. 1993. It is sited that in the said minutes there was no decision taken by the Board of Governors to terminate his appointment as Principal. THE petitioner refers to item 6, which deals with terms of appointment of Principal and alleges that the said resolution only wanted to adopt the suggestion Ministry of Human Resources Development, government of India and that it does not in any manner seek to take decision to terminate the services of the petitioner, who is the existing incumbent who had served for more than three years as Principal. THE petitioner also refers to a letter of the Government of India which was relied on by Board of Governors dated 22. 12. 1992 and alleges that even on a reading of the said letter it is implicit that in respect of future appointments, the initial appointment should be for a period of three years only subject to renewal depending upon merits. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the said letter has been accepted and adopted at the meeting of the Board of Governors and that it is unimaginable that the said communication could be used to affect the rights of incumbents who are now holding and relieving him of the duties of Principal even before the expiry of the contractual period of five years and also ignoring the purport of the communication of the Government of India stating that such incumbents could also be renewed depending upon merits. THE petitioner further alleges that he served as Principal with utmost sincerity and strived hard to maintain the excellence and reputation of the said college during my tenure as principal and that there has been no complaint whatsoever against him from any quarters.

(3.) MR. Mohan Parasaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and that it offends Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the resolutions passed by the Board of Governors do not validate the impugned order passed. According to the learned counsel, the government order cannot affect the right of the petitioner, in so far as the petitioner has been appointed for a period of five years after calling for applications through advertisement. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been selected and appointed as per the Rules of Board of governors, as referred to by the third respondent. Learned counsel further contended that as referred to by the third respondent, the period of tenure of appointment is five years and that it has not been reduced to three years. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even the letter of the third respondent of the year 1989 as stated in the counter-afffidavit has not been followed by the Board of Governors, til! the resolution which has been relied on by the Government, is passed by the Board of Governors in June, 1993. According to the learned counsel, the appointing authority is the Board of Directors and so far as the appointing authority has not passed the order, the impugned order cannot stand and it has to be set aside on that ground. It is further contended that the Government has no jurisdiction to pass such an order relieving the petitioner from the post of principal, unilaterally when the appointing authority is the Board of Directors as per the Rules of the Society, as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is an appointment on contract basis, that the Government has approved it, that the Board of Directors has passed such a resolution, that the respondent Government has approved the order passed in the year 1991 enumerating the length of service of the Principal and as such the respondents are estopped specifically, from reducing the period of five years to three years unilaterally and that the order is hit by the principle of promissory estoppel. It is further contended that when the petitioner has been told that he has been appointed for five years it is not open to the respondents to reduce the period to three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a reading of the counter-affidavit of the third respondent will show that the action taken by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary, and that the respondents cannot take shelter of the letter of the third respondent dated 22. 12. 1992 and try to defend the impugned order. Learned counsel further refers to the decisions in vice Chancellor, Osmania University v. Chancellor, A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1305. In shri Lekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P. , (1990)4 J. T. 211: (1991)1 S. C. C 212: a. I. R. 1991 S. C. 537. In Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle Food industries, A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 1601 and in SH. Govind Prasad v. R. G. Prasad, (1993)6 J. T. (S. C.) 233 for the proposition that even assuming the appointment is on contractual basis, it has to be struck down as it violates Art. 14 of the constitution of India. Learned counsel further contended that the second respondent is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court and that it has been held so in Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 487: (1981)1 Lab l. J. 103: (1981)1 S. C. C. 722 Learned counsel further pointed out that the resolution passed under the Rules of the Society cannot support the stand of the respondents that the period of service of the petitioner, which is on the contract term of five years, has been automatically reduced to three years. Learned counsel further contended that insofar the Rules are not amended and that no order has been passed by the Board of Governors reducing the petitioner's services to such a period, the State Government has no jurisdiction to pass an order, which is impugned herein.