RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Plaintiff's Second Appeal who was a clerk in the University of Gorakhpur, the first Defendant-Respondent. His services were terminated by a notice dated the 31st October, 1967, by the Defendant-Respondent No. 2, who was, at that time the Registrar of the Respondent University. The suit was for a declaration that the said termination of the Plaintiff's service was illegal and void, and that the Plaintiff still continues to be in the service of the University as an Office Assistant, and for recovery of Rs. 198.33 p. as salary and dearness allowance from the 1st December, 1967 to the date of suit, and pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, two points were raised at the trial. Firstly, the Plaintiff claimed that, although he was originally appointed as a temporary clerk on April 12, 1962, his appointment became permanent on the 15th April, 1964, and could not, therefore, be terminated without any fault. Secondly, it was claimed that the only authority competent to terminate the Plaintiff's services was the authority competent to appoint, namely, the Executive Council of the Respondent University and that the Registrar had no such power. The trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the termination of the Plaintiff's services was illegal and void, and that he continued to be in the service of the Respondent University as an Office Assistant. The decree for recovery of Rs. 198.33 p. as salary up to the date of suit was also passed. The claim for pendente lite salary at the rate of Rs. 175/- was dismissed with the observation that, though entitled to recover the same, that relief could not be granted because the Plaintiff had not paid Court-fees and may bring a fresh suit for the same.

(3.) The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal of the Respondent University and dismissed the suit in its entirety. The lower appellate Court held that the Plaintiff was a temporary employee of the University, and, since he was appointed not by the Executive Council but by the Registrar, the Registrar was within his rights to terminate his services, although the lower appellate Court also found that under the Gorakhpur University Act the Registrar had no power of appointment of the employees of the University and had no power of terminating their services.