SHREERAM CHANDRA DASH Vs. CHANCELLOR UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who was a Professor and Head of the Department of Political Science in the Utkal University has prayed for quashing the order of premature retirement, annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, inter alia on the grounds that (i) the pre-conditions for exercise of power under Statutes 238 and 241 of the Utkal University Statutes, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Statutes') not having been satisfied, the order of retirement is bad in law, (ii) the order is a mala fide one having been passed by the Administrator for extraneous consideration, (iii) Statutes 238 and 241 which were brought by way of amendment are ultra vires the provisions of the Utkal University Act and accordingly cannot be sustained, and (iv) there is no material on the basis of which the appropriate authority could come to the conclusion that the petitioner is known to be lacking in integrity or his physical and mental condition is such as to make him inefficient for further service or his continuance is not desirable in the interest of the University irrespective of assessment of his ability or efficiency in work, as required under Statute 239 and accordingly the impugned order is bad in law.

(2.) According to the petitioner's case, his date of birth is 1-1-1919 and he was a permanent Government servant under the State Government of Orissa as a Reader in Political Science in Class-I of the Orissa Education Service. The Utkal University issued an advertisement on 26-4-1960 for the post of Professor in the Department of Political Science which is annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner applied for the said post and on being selected joined the post of Professor in the Department of Political Science under the Utkal University on 12th of July, 1963, and he was substantively absorbed with effect from 1-4-1966, by resolution of the Syndicate dated 5-11-1966 which has been annexed as Annexure-4/a to the writ petition. The Management of the University was taken over by the State Government by virtue of the Utkal University (Taking over of Management) Ordinance. 1974 (Orissa Ordinance No. 7 of 1974) which later became an Act and opposite party No. 3 was appointed as the Administrator on whom the powers of the Senate, the Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor stood vested. According to the petitioner, the said opposite party No. 3 at the behest of the political bosses in power, took several mala fide steps to get the petitioner out of service and ultimately contrary to the advice of the University Grants Commission and in utter disregard of the statutory provisions and notwithstanding the rejection of the recommendations of the Statutes Amending Committee, introduced Chapter-XXX into the University Statutes providing for premature retirement. In pursuance of the powers conferred under Statutes 238 and242 of the amended Statutes, the Chancellor under the advice of the Review Committee passed the impugned order under Annexure-1. The petitioner thereafter had filed an appeal to the Chancellor and on rejection of the said appeal has approached t his Court challenging the order of retirement. The petitioner asserts that on account of the illegal order of termination under Annexure- 1. the petitioner was made to superannuate at the age of 57 though under the normal rules, he was to superannuate at the age of 60 years. In the meantime, the petitioner has completed his 60th year and accordingly, the petitioner prays that in the event the order of premature retirement under Annexure-1 is quashed, he must be held to be entitled to receive the salary till his 60th year.

(3.) On behalf of opposite parties I and 2. namely, the Chancellor and the University, an affidavit has been filed in opposition by the Registrar of the University. The stand of the University in the counter affidavit is that the Statutes were amended and provision for premature retirement was introduced since there was no such provision prior to the said amendment and keeping in view the similar provisions made by the State Government for its employees. The said Chap. XXX of the University Statutes is not violative of any provisions of the Utkal University Act nor can it be said to be illegal in any manner and in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Review Committee which Committee on consideration of the materials recommended for premature retirement of the petitioner and ultimately, the Chancellor passed the impugned order. The allegation that the pre-conditions for exercise of power under Chap. XXX are not satisfied has been denied in the counter affidavit.