B S N RAJU Vs. ANDDHRA UNIVERSITY WALTAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Lecturer in Civil Engineering in the Andhra University having been appointed to that post in the year 1980. The Government of India formulated a scheme known as "Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) under which the Universities in India are asked to sponsor qualified and deserving candidates for doing Ph.D., programme in different LIT in the country. The petitioner was sponsored for Ph.D., Programme on 14-5-1984 in Civil Engineering branch at the LIT. Kanpur for a period of three yean. During the three years period of deputation, the Q.I.P. Scheme envisages mat the university should pay the salary of the sponsored candidate and also extra remuneration to meet certain contingencies. The learned counsel for the University says that a monthly allowance of Rs.600/- and an annual allowance of Rs.1,000/- are fixed by the university under the Scheme.

(2.) A bond dated 21-12-1984 was obtained by the university from the petitioner to the effect that in the event of his failing to comply with the terms recited in the bond, he will return the amount received from the University during the period of deputation. According to the petitioner, after he completed the academic curriculum part of the Ph.D., programme, he developed servere cold and allergy to Kanpur weather. He, therefore, on medical grounds requested the head of the Department of the LIT Kanpur to permit him to withdraw from the Ph.D., Programme and permission was accordingly accorded on 2-5-1986. Even before that, he addressed a letter to the Andhra University on 8-4-1986 for permitting him to re-join as a lecturer, but as no reply was reoeived he joined the Department of Civil Engineering at the Andhra University on 6-5-1986. Alleging that discontinuance of the Q.LP. Programme at the LIT. Kanpur entails liability to refund the amounts paid to him, the Syndicate of the Andhra University passed a resolution on 18-7-1986 resolving to recover from the petitioner the salary paid to him during the period of deputation, and the resolution was communicated by the Registrar to the petitioner on 24-7-1986. The petitioner submitted a representation to the University requesting for 'reconsideration of the resolution and he also brought to the notice of the University a precedent relating to one Sri M. Sreenivasa Rao, a Reader in Civil Engineering of the Andhra University, who has been permitted to terminate the Q.I.P. Programme in the middle and re-join duty without monetary commitments. The University while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, modified its earlier resolution by its order dated 29-4-1987 granting half pay for a period of four months and twenty seven days from 21-12-1984 to 16-5-1985 to the petitioner and seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.30,638-09 ps. in monthly instalments of Rs.500/-each commencing from 1-5-1987. Although the petitioner has not challenged the modified resolution, he filed the present writ petition questioning the legality of the original resolution dated 18-7-1986 by which the University sought to recover the salary from him for the deputation period.

(3.) Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the bond obtained by the University from the petitioner does not authorise the University to recover the salary paid to the petitioner for the deputation period when he had not obtained the Ph.D., and did not complete the required period of programme. In opposition to this, the learned Standing Counsel for the University argues that from the bond obtained from the petitioner an implied obligation can be culled out by which the petitioner is bound to reimburse the expenses incurred by the University on him for the deputation period.