ARCHANA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.1.2005 of the Chancellor of the Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') by which the appointment of the petitioner in a substantive capacity made by the Executive Council of the University in the meeting held on 7.12.2003 under Section 31(3)(b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been cancelled.

(2.) The petitioner submitted an application dated 20.7.1998 for appointment as a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Sociology in the Institute of Social Sciences of the University (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institute') in the leave vacancy of Dr. K. Chaudhary. On the basis of the aforesaid application, a communication dated 1.9.1998 was sent to the petitioner intimating her to come to the Institute and take down from the time table the work assigned to Dr. K. Chaudhary. The appointment was, however, subject to the final approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 100/- per lecture. A communication dated 24.7.2001 was thereafter sent by the Registrar of the University to the petitioner intimating her that on the recommendation of the Screening Committee meeting held on 28.6.2001 the Vice-Chancellor had been pleased to appoint the petitioner on purely contractual basis to teach/assist in the Institute for a period of one year on a consolidated salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month w.e.f. 11.7.2001. It v/as clearly stipulated that the contract could be terminated on one month's notice from either side or one month's salary in lieu thereof and that the appointment was not against any substantive post and was purely temporary in the Self Financing Scheme. It was further stated that the services shall stand automatically terminated after the expiry of the time and no notice for termination was required. This order dated 24.7.2001 was partially modified by the order dated 4.9.2001 which provided that the said appointment would be effective from 1.7.2001 instead of 11.7.2001. The aforesaid temporary appointment was extended from 1.7.2002 up to 30.6.2003 by the communication dated 23.8.2002 on the same term and conditions as stipulated in the earlier communication dated 24.7.2001. Thereafter, another communication dated 13.8.2003 was sent by the Registrar of the University to the petitioner extending the aforesaid temporary appointment w.e.f. 7.7.2003 to 30.6.2004. The term and conditions remained the same as in the earlier communications.

(3.) The petitioner submitted an application for being substantive appointment under Section 31(3)(b) of the Act when Dr. K. Chaudhary submitted his resignation. The Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 7.8.2003 resolved to appoint the petitioner in a substantive capacity under Section 31 (3)(b) of the Act after noticing that Dr. K. Chaudhary had submitted the resignation letter and that the case of the petitioner was similar to the case of Dr. B.D. Shukla, who had also been given the substantive appointment by the Executive Council in the same meeting. This substantive appointment of the petitioner was challenged by Rajan Mishra, respondent No. 6, by a reference to the Chancellor of the University under Section 68 of the Act. The Chancellor sent, a copy of the reference to the petitioner to submit her reply and comments were also sought from the University. Both the petitioner and the University submitted their comments. The reference was decided by the Chancellor by his order dated 19.1.2005 by setting aside the substantive appointment of the petitioner and it is this order dated 19.1.2005 which has been impugned in the present petition.