HARWANT SINGH CHHABRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel strenuously contended that the interpretation of Para. 10 of the "Rajiv Gandhi Indian Institute of Management, Shillong Memorandum of Association and Rules" is required in the present writ petition inasmuch as, this Court is required to decide as to whether the respondent No. 3 was duly authorized to function as Director of the Institute at the time of issuing the impugned order dated 12.10.2012. Since the interpretation of the said para is required in the present writ petition, para. 10 of the Memorandum of Association and Rules is quoted hereunder:--

(2.) The succinct facts sufficient for deciding the issue in the present writ petition is noted. The writ petitioner was appointed as visiting Professor, on contract basis, of the Institution for a period of two years w.e.f. 31.12.2011 to 30.12.2013 subject to the conditions that the contract may be terminated by one month's notice from either side under the appointment letter i.e. order for extension of the terms of contract appointment dated 26.12.2011 issued by the Director of Rajiv Gandhi Indian Institute of Management (for short 'RGIIM'), Shillong. By the impugned letter/order issued by the respondent No. 3 Prof. Keya Sengupta being No. RGIIM/Admn/Per.File/Faculty/30/2012/858 dated 12.10.2012, the petitioner had been informed that his service as visiting Professor at the Institution are not required and his appointment as visiting Professor on contract basis is terminated with immediate effect, and that a Demand Draft No. 335068 dated 12.10.2012 for Rs. 1,40,000.00 (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) only on account of 12 days salary for the month of October, 2012 as well as one month salary in lieu of notice period is enclosed.

(3.) On plain perusal of the appointment letter dated 26.12.2011 issued by the Director RGIIM, Shillong, it is clear that the petitioner had been appointed as visiting Professor on contract basis for the Institution for a period of two years w.e.f. 31.12.2011 to 30.12.2013 subject to the conditions that the contract may be terminated by one month's notice from either side. Therefore, the service of the petitioner as visiting Professor on contract basis under the said appointment letter could be terminated by one month's notice from either side. By the impugned letter dated 12.10.2012 issued by the respondent No. 3, the service of the petitioner as Professor on contract basis had been terminated under the terms and conditions mentioned in the said appointment letter dated 26.12.2011 by paying one month salary in lieu of one month's notice. The question calls for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the respondent No. 3 was competent to issue the termination letter dated 12.10.2012?