SHIVNARAYAN Vs. VICE CHANCELLORUNIVERSITY OF SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shivnarayan moves for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated the 20th August 1959 of the Vice-Chancellor of the opponent University terminating his services with effect from the 25th August 1959. The petitioner also prays that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the opponent University for his reinstatement in service.

(2.) The facts are that the applicant was appointed as a lecturer in Hindi against a permanent vacancy on the 26th August 1957. He was placed on a probation of two years from 26th August 1957. On 19th August 1959, the Head of the Hindi Department made a report to the Vice-Chancellor that the petitioner's work was not satisfactory and that his services should be terminated forthwith. On this report the Vice-Chancellor made an order on 20th August 1959 terminating the applicant's services from the 25th August 1959. The order terminating the applicant's services mentioned that the applicant had shown inability to teach, particularly higher classes that he had failed to handle efficiently the work of the Bun-del Khandi section of the department to which he was attached; and that he had shown lack of "general intellectual interest." The petitioner challenges the validity of the termination order on the ground that no notice or charge-sheet was given to him before the order D/- 20-8-1959 was made and he was not given any opportunity to meet the imputation against his efficiency; that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to terminate his services; and that in any case his services could not be ended without a prior notice of three months.

(3.) The reply of the opponent University is that as the petitioner was on a probation of two years and as his work was not found to be satisfactory by the Head of the Hindi Department, his services could be terminated at any time before the period of probation expired; that the Vice-Chancellor acted under Section 14(4) of the University of Saugar Act, 1946, in passing the order terminating the petitioner's services; that Clause (9) of the agreement of service entered into between the petitioner and the University, under which the petitioner claimed that he was entitled to three months' notice before the termination of his service, was not applicable to the petitioner as he had not been confirmed; and that the said clause applied only to the termination of the executant's services after confirmation.