PARMANAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 30.9.1997. In this case a Division Bench had issued notice to the respondents on 7.11.1997 but none has appeared for respondents. In view of Explanation II of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, notices are deemed to be served on the respondents.

(2.) It appears that the writ petitioners were appointed in SaraswatI Sanskrit Pathshala, Purematha, P.O. Puremoti, district Pratapgarh on various dates from 1970 onwards. The appellant No. 1 was appointed as Principal and other appellants as teachers in the said institution, which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and is governed by the U. P. State Universities Act. 1973. Their services were also approved by the Inspector/Assistant Inspector of Sanskrit Pathshala vide approval orders dated 30.3.1976 and 3.2.1978 Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition and they were getting their salary. However, it appears that subsequent to the petitioners' appointment and approval, the First Statutes were framed for Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya which came Into effect on 26.12.1978. Since it was alleged that the petitioners did not have the qualifications prescribed in the Ist Statutes, their services were terminated on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification for the posts which they were holding. They made a representation to the Chancellor which was rejected, hence they filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 30.9.1997 and hence this special appeal,

(3.) We are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge is incorrect and deserves to be set aside. The learned single Judge has observed that the petitioners did not possess the qualification mentioned In the first Statutes of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, and hence their services were rightly terminated. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. B. Godiyal submitted that the first Statutes were not made retrospective and hence they cannot apply to the petitioners. Moreover, the Statutes of the University are delegated Legislation and delegated Legislation cannot be held to be retrospective unless the parent Act permits it. We are of the opinion that these submissions are correct.