HEMANSHU KUMAR CHATURVEDI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed on September 25, 1986 as part-time Lecturer in the Department of Medieval and Modern History of University of Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the University) by the Vice Chancellor, in exercise of his power under Section 13 (6) and (8) of the State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a period of six months or till regularly selected candidate joins, whichever was earlier. This appointment was extended from tune to time by the Vice-Chancellor. On July 19, 1987 the Executive Council of the University granted House Allowance to the part-time teachers and also allowed them to continue in service in future. In view of the above decision of the Executive Council the appointments of the petitioner as well as other parttime-teachers, were extended by the Vice-Chancellor from time to time up to November 2, 1989. On October 7, 1989 the Executive Council resolved that all part-time Lecturers to be treated as ad hoc Lecturers with effect from November 1, 1989 and be paid their salary accordingly. In pursuance of the above decision of the Executive Council the Vice-Chancellor issued appointment letter dated December 1, 1989 to the petitioner appointing him as ad hoc Lecturer for a period of six months or till regularly selected candidates joins, whichever was earlier. The period of this appointment was extended from time to time on the same terms and conditions, as were contained in the appointment letter dated December 1, 1989. However, by letter dated May 8, 1991 the Vice-Chancellor extended the appointment of the petitioner merely for about two months from May 5, 1991 to June 30, 1991. On June 29, 1991, the Head of the Department requested the Vice Chancellor to extend term of the petitioner so that the teaching in the Department may not be affected and this request was endorsed and recommended by the Dean of the Faculty and Pro-Vice Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor, however, passed no order on the above request Although there was no order extending the term of the appointment of the petitioner, but he continued to work as ad hoc Lecturer subsequent to June 30, 1991 and was paid his salary for the months of July and August, 1991. Even after August, 1991, the petitioner continued to work and is still working as ad hoc Lecturer, but he has not been paid his salary on the ground that there is no order extending the term of his appointment after June 30, 1991. He accordingly filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with his working as ad hoc Lecturer. Further prayers for directing the respondents to issue fresh appointment letter and to pay the salary, are also made. This Court while entertaining the writ petition issued an ad interim order on September 6, 1991 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as ad hoc Lecturer and to pay his salary in accordance with law, within four months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before the Registrar, or to show cause within the same period. It appears that the above interim mandamus was not complied with by the respondents and neither salary was paid to the petitioner nor was cause shown within the time specified by the interim order dated September 6, 1991. Subsequently counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the petitioner had filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto.

(2.) Along with the counter-affidavit the University filed two orders of the Vice Chancellor, viz., the order dated August 31, 1991, whereby the services of all ad hoc and part-time Lecturers were terminated and the order dated October 5, 1991 by which the order dated August 31, 1991 was modified to the extent that the services of ad hoc teachers were declared to have been terminated with effect from June 30, 1991. By an application for amendment the petitioner has amended the writ petition so as to challenge the above two orders dated August 31, 1991 and October 5, 1991.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made three submissions in support of writ petition viz. (i) As the petitioner was appointed as part-time Lecturer in 1986 and as ad hoc Lecturer in 1989 for the period till regularly selected candidate joins and he has been working continuously since then and no regularly selected candidate has joined the Department, he is entitled to continue to work in the Department and respondents are bound to pay him the salary till regularly selected candidate joins: (ii) Under U.P. Ordinance No. 44 of 1991, which has been replaced by U.P. Act No. 1 of 1992, the services of the petitioner are liable to be regularised, and (iii) The petitioner has been discriminated against by the Vice-Chancellor who has acted arbitrarily, mala fide and on extraneous considerations. Learned Counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that (1) the petitioner's appointment was always for fixed period and his service came to an end by efflux of time and the management was, as such, justified to terminate his services after expiry of terms for which he was appointed and he is neither entitled to continue in service nor is he entitled for regularisation of his service under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1992; and (2) as the petitioner was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 13(6) and (8) of the Act, he cannot claim regularisation. The submission about mala fide has also been disputed.