DR. CHANDRA DEO PANDEY Vs. THE CHANCELLOR, ALLAHABAD

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 Sec. 13(6) of State Universities Act is entitled to claim regularisation Under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Dec., 1986 by the Vice Chancellor Under Sec. 13(6) in fresh temporary vacancies, may be, in pursuance of resolution of the Executive Council of the University of Nov., 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 Jan., 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 Aug., 1987. Since the letter of head of department sent in Jan., 1988 did not evoke any response, the Petitioners represented before the Vice Chancellor that regular vacancies having arisen in Aug., 1987 the Registrar should be directed to pay them their salary since Aug., 1987. They also made representation to the Executive Council in same month namely, March 23, 1988 that they having been working since Dec., 1986 were entitled to regularisation Under Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Feb., 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 destructive of fairness and may give rise to misgiving and speculation.

(3.) Reverting to the issues the order dated 17th April, 1988 issued by the Registrar intimating Petitioners that extension granted to them March, 1988 since the date of their appointment stands cancelled in view of the Chancellor's order dated 29th March, which dismissed the representation of Dr. Rai as in fructuous could technically be said to proceed on misapprehension. True the Chancellor having dismissed the representation without entering into merits and recording any finding that appointment of Petitioners was contrary to law as claimed by Dr. Rai it could not furnish material for cancelling the order extending Petitioners services. But really speaking the University acted not only properly and reasonably but legally as well since the order of Chancellor having being procured on representation that Petitioners were not in service the order extending services of Petitioners from back date resulted in an anomaly and the only way in which the wrong could be set right was by recalling the order. The import of Chancellor's order being that since Petitioners were not in service since July, 1987 the order extending their services from the date after expiry of first appointment could not be permitted to continue But since Petitioners were not parties, to it and they continued to function on assurance of head of department who appears to have been equally unaware of all this, it would be unjust and unfair to deprive them of their emoluments.