COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF MAHATMA GANDHI SHANTI SMARAK MAHA VIDYALAYA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 30-5-87 whereby he has held the purported termination of the services of Dr. Satyendra Singh the Principal of Mahatma Gandhi Shanti Smarak Maha Vidyalaya, Garua Maqsoodpur district Ghazipur which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University by its management represented by the petitioners was illegal and that Dr. Satyendra Singh continues to be the Principal of the College. The petitioner contend that the Vice Chancellor has not correctly interpreted sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 35 of the U. P. State Universities Act in taking the view that approval of the Vice Chancellor was necessary before termination of the service of Dr. Satyendra Singh.

(2.) THE essential facts are that Dr. Satyendra Singh was appointed as Principal of the aforesaid College under a letter of appointment issued to him on 14-6-86 stating that he was being appointed on probation for a period of one year and that he may take charge on 1-7-86. THE case of the management is that the work and conduct of Dr. Satyendra Singh was not found satisfactory by the managing committee and consequently by its resolution dated 9-11-86 it decided to terminate the services of Dr. Satyendra Singh. THE decision to terminate the services was communicated to Dr. Satyendra Singh through the letter of the Manager dated 30-3-87. THE letter states that in view of the fact that the committee has found the work and conduct of Dr. Satyendra Singh unsatisfactory, he cannot be confirmed and that the services are being terminated with effect from 1-5-87. It appears Dr. Satyendra Singh challenged the above resolution before the Vice Chancellor whereupon the impugned order dated 30-5-87 was passed. THE Vice Chancellor has held that his approval was mandatory and inasmuch as the same was not obtained the order of termination was without any legal effect.

(3.) IT is apparent that the exception carved out under sub-section (3) of section 35 applies only to fixed term appointments. IT has no application to a case where, as here, the teacher is not appointed for a fixed term but put on probation for a specified period. The period of probation should not be confused with or equated to fixed term appointments. The mere fact, therefore, that Dr. Satyendra Singh was appointed on probation for one year does not mean that his appointment was for a fixed term. The exception referred to in sub-section (3) of section 35 thus does not apply to the case in hand because Dr. Satyendra Singh's appointment was not for term. That being so, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 35 were clearly attracted.