LALJI PRASAD SAHU Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR JABALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri Lalji Prasad Sahu has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Vice-Chancellor, Jabalpur University (respondent No. 1), Dr. Mahavir Sharan Jain, Lecturer in Hindi, Jabalpur University (respondent No. 2) and the Jabalpur University (respondent No. 3), praying that the second respondent may be restrained from functioning as the Lecturer of the University, that the extension granted by the first respondent to him under annexures C, D and E, dated, respectively, 6-10-1965, 26-3-1966 and 4-10-1966, be quashed and declared to have been made by the first respondent without powers, and that the post of the Lecturer in Hindi be declared vacant.

(2.) THE facts are simple. On a recommendation of the Committee of Selection made on 7-8-1964, the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 14-8-1964 appointed the second respondent as Lecturer in Hindi in the Institute of Languages and Research in the University of Jabalpur on a salary of Rs. 400 per month in the scale of pay of 400-30-640-E. B.-40-800 and the said appointment was made on a temporary basis up to the 31st March 1965 from the date on which the second respondent joined his duties in the department. On 22-3-1965 the said Executive Council in its meeting decided to extend the term of the second respondent for a period of six months which was to expire on 30-9 1965. THE first respondent extended the term of the appointment of the second respondent for a period of six months with effect from 1-10-1965 to 31-3-1966 and this fact was notified to the second respondent through his letter dated 6-10-1965 (annexure C). Again, the first respondent extended the term of the second respondent for a further period of six months from 1-4-1966 to 30-9-1966 and the same was communicated to the second respondent under letter dated 26-3-1966 (annexure D). THEn for the third time the first respondent on 4-10-1966 extended the term of the second respondent for a further period of six months commencing from 1-10-1966 to 31-3-1967. This fact was communicated to the second respondent under letter dated 4-10-1966 (annexure E).

(3.) SHRI S. K. Pachori, on the other hand, has urged that the Executive Council on the second occasion had only extended the term of office of the second respondent up to 30-9-1965 and therefore he ceased to be in the service of the University on 1-10-1965 and thereafter the first order extending his term was passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 6-10-1965. It is urged by him that that order could not be passed by the Vice-Chancellor even under his emergency powers as the appointment of the second respondent had been terminated 5 days before he extended it. As he ceased to be in service on the expiry of 30-9-1965, it is contended that his term could not be extended. It is further urged that the resolution of the Executive Council passed on 17-1-1967 (annexure R- l) could not be given retrospective effect from 1-10-1966 and even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that such retrospective effect could be given, the resolution purported to extend the term of the second respondent only from 1-4-1966 still leaving a gap of six months between 1-10-1965 and 31-3-1966. He has further urged that as appointments to the teaching post of the University could only be made by the University Executive Council, the entire action of the Vice-Chancellor was utterly illegal and wholly unjustified.