SATYA PRAKASH UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 5.5.2014, Annexure P/17, passed by respondent no.2 Acting Vice Chancellor terminating/dismissing his services.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially working on the post of Deputy Registrar in Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar (in short, "the University"). In response to advertisement dated 25.11.2011 published by the University he applied for the post of Controller of Examination. Thereafter, the petitioner underwent a selection process carried out by the selection committee and was declared selected. His selection was then also approved by the Executive Council of the University. He was, therefore, vide order dated 16.9.2013, Annexure P12, appointed on the post of Controller of Examination for a term of five years from the date of his joining. But the Registrar of University issued a show cause notice dated 2/3.4.2014, Annexure P15, questioning the eligibility of petitioner for the post of Controller of Examination and also ask him to reply about various illegalities committed by the Assistant Registrar for his appointment. On 7.4.2014, Annexure P16, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice which did not find favour with respondent no.2 who by the impugned order dated 5.5.2014 terminated and dismissed him from service on the ground that he did not fulfil the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of Controller of Examination from the very date of his joining. In sum and substance, respondent no.2 cancelled the appointment of petitioner.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that under the First Statute (8), as provided under section 16 of the Central Universities Act, 2009 (in short, "the Act"), the appointing authority for the post of Controller of Examination is the Executive Council and in the absence of any delegation of power by it to respondent no.2 the order of termination/ dismissal being without any authority is null and void. It has also been argued that the petitioner was duly selected by the selection committee and on its recommendation the Executive Council, which is the supreme body of University, had lawfully appointed him but respondent no.2 malafidely cancelled the appointment and dismissed him from service. It was further submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified for his appointment to the post of Controller of Examination.