CHANDRA DEO PANDEY Vs. CHANCELLOR ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short but important question of law that arises for consideration in these petitions filed by two teachers of department of Ancient History of Allahabad University, is if a teacher appointed by the Vice- Chancellor in exercise of powers under section 13 (6) of State Universities Act is entitled to claim regularisation under section 31 (3) (b) of the Act. Although initially the principal thrust of the petition was directed against the office order issued in pursuance of Chancellor's order intimating the petitioner that their extension for six months stood cancelled but subsequently it was extended to include claim for regularisation which was seriously objected to by the learned counsel for University both for changing the nature and scope of the petition and maintainability of reference before Chancellor but the petitioners being victim of improper advice resulting in set back to their career should not any further be kept in dark about their status grounded on Section 31 (3) (b).

(2.) FOR the permanent and three temporary post of lecturers in department of Ancient History advertised in 1985 the statutory selection committee constituted under section 34 (a) of the Act interviewed candidates, including petitioners, and prepared four panels, two for permanent and two for temporary posts and recommended petitioners against temporary post but did not place them at serial no. 1 in either panel. And the recommended candidates who were above petitioners in the panel having joined, thus the panel stood exhausted. But the petitioners were appointed in December, 1986 by the Vice Chancellor under section 13 (6) in fresh temporary vacancies, may be, in pursuance of resolution of the Executive Council of the University of November, 1986 authorising the Vice Chancellor to make ad-hoc appointment from the panel. Purpose and effect of this resolution shall be adverted to latter. But before expiry of six months from the date of appointment the head of department in May, 1987 wrote to the Registrar that work and conduct of petitioners being very satisfactory their appointment may be extended till the meeting of statutory selection committee and consequential appointment. And in July,' 1987 the Vice-Chancellor probably agreed for their extension and passed orders as well but they were not issued, as appears from letter of the head of department sent in November, 1987 to the Registrar. When nothing happened and petitioners were not paid their salary, obviously because there was no order extending their service, although they were working, the head of department, wrote again in January, 1988 to the Vice Chancellor that he had passed the orders and file was handed over to the Registrar yet the orders were not issued, therefore, immediate action may be taken. In the meantime four posts of lecturers in the department fell vacant and advertisement inviting applications for those posts was issued in August, 1987. Since the letter of head of department sent in January, 1988 did not evoke any response, the petitioners represented before the Vice Chancellor that regular vacancies having arisen in August, 1987 the Registrar should be directed to pay them their salary since August, 1987. They also made representation to the Executive Council in same month namely, March 23, 1988 that they having been working since December, 1986 were entitled to regularisation under Section 31 (3) (v). On March 25, the head of department made another request to the Vice-Chancellor for issuing the letter of extension so that petitioners be paid their salary. Copy of this letter was endorsed to Dean Faculty of Arts who on same day recommended to continue petitioners till regular appointments were made to avoid any unnecessary hardship to them. This was approved and on 30th March, 1988 the order was issued under section 13 (6) appointing petitioners till selection through statutory selection Committee was made. And the appointment was made effective in continuation of earlier appointments. But the order was cancelled on 17th April, 1987 in pursuance of Chancellor's order dated 29th March. Validity of this order shall be examined a little latter. But to complete the narration of facts it may be mentioned that one Dr. S. K. Rai appears to have made representation to the Chancellor against ad-hoc appointment of petitioners in April, 1987. On it the University was required to submit its comments to the Chancellor and in February, 1988 it informed that term of petitioners had not been extended. And they were not in service of University. On this information the Chancellor dismissed the representation without examining objection of Dr. Rai. But when University came to know of the order of Chancellor then it realised its mistake in extending services of petitioners and corrected it by cancelling the impugned order. Why should such things happen in such institutions passed comprehension. Even if the action was innocent its effect was unfortunate. Institutions like Universities should avoid acting in a manner which may be distructive of fairness and may give rise to misgiving and speculation.

(3.) RELIANCE was placed on averments in writ petition that in similar circumstances the University did regularise other teachers. But unfortunately no proper foundation was laid obviously because the plea of regularisation itself was taken in amendment application. Even there it was averred that 13 lecturers who had been appointed initially as ad-hoc lecturers had been regularised as mentioned in representation. But even in that representation it is not mentioned that they were appointed under section 13 (6). And that makes the entire difference.