SHAILESH NARAYAN GUPTA Vs. RAGISTRAR ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The er dated 21.9.1990 passed by the Respondent No. 2 at Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition and the order dated 12.7.1989 passed by the Respondent at Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition have been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) As appears from the record, the Petitioner was appointed as Routine Grade Assistant in the Respondents-University on 4.12.1976 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). Such appointment was said to be purely temporary and was time-bound. But, admittedly the employment continued even beyond February, 1977 as was indicated in the appointment letter. Upon creation of certain more posts of Routine Grade Assistant on 22.8.1980, a resolution was taken by the Executive Council of the University on 10.1.1981 resolving the adjustment of the service of the Routine Grade Assistants. The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He earned his due increment and was allowed to cross the efficiency bar by communication order dated 18.6.1988. According to the Petitioner, being highly qualified person and dedicated to his service, the Petitioner was elected as General Secretary of the Employees' Welfare Society, Rohilkhand University and due to certain activities in his capacity, including levelling charges against the Registrar, Rohilkhand University, Bareilly for corruption, embezzlement and nepotism by letter dated 19.6.1989, the Petitioner earned annoyance and on 10.7.1989 the officer on special duty (Administration) called for an explanation of the Petitioner in regard to certain charges levelled by him in a letter written by the Petitioner against the officers of the University. The said letter was received by the Petitioner on 11.7.1989 and even before he could submit his explanation, the Petitioner was transferred from the account Section to the despatch department of the General Administration Section, such transfer was on 11.7.1989. The Petitioner assumed his charge in his transferred department at 4.30 p.m. and he was dismissed from service barely twelve hours thereafter by a letter issued by the Registrar on 12.7.1989. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner could not produce any result and without considering the relevant facts, the appeal was dismissed which was communicated by letter dated 21.9.1990.

(3.) The Respondents filed counter-affidavit to which the Petitioner filed his rejoinder-affidavit.