BIBHUTI KALYAN MAHAKUL Vs. SAMBALPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to an advertisement published under Annexure -1, the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science reserved for S.E.B.C. He was called to face an interview on 7.4.2004 before the Selection Committee and accordingly he faced the interview and got selected for the post. On 27.5.2004, vide Resolution No. 32, Syndicate approved the selection and directed for issuance of appointment order to the selected candidates, including the petitioner. Accordingly on 1.6.2004, appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner with a consolidated pay of Rs. 10,000/ - per month under Annexure -5 and he joined in the post. As it appeared that there was gross violation of statutory provisions, U.G.C. guidelines and Syndicate -directives in respect of award of marks to candidates of various teaching posts, it was resolved by the Syndicate on 21.3.2005 vide Resolution No. (IV) that the Hon'ble Chancellor would be requested to cause an inquiry into the fairness and legality of the selection and allow the Syndicate to review the appointment orders in respect of teaching posts of the University. The Syndicate brought the illegality to the notice of the Hon'ble Chancellor, where after on 23.8.2005, the Hon'ble Chancellor issued notice to the Vice -Chancellor to show cause within 15 days of receipt of notice as to why the Resolution No. 32 dated 27.5.2004 of the Syndicate and consequential order No. 5733/Est.III dated 1.6.2004 of Sambalpur University shall not be annulled. Shri G.R. Dubey a member of the Syndicate was appointed to enquire into the fairness of the selection of University teachers and accordingly he enquired into it and submitted his report. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Syndicate resolved vide Resolution No. 23 dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure -8) to review its earlier Resolution No. 54 (iv) dated 21.3.2005 and sought for permission from the Hon'ble Chancellor to give appointment to the candidate who stood second in the merit list. In the meantime, the Registrar, Sambalpur University (Opp. party No. 2) Issued Office Order No. 4964/Est -III dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure -9) to the effect that, the Hon'ble Chancellor, in exercise of the power vested on him, under Sub -section 10 of Section 5 of the Act was pleased to annul Resolution No. 32, dated 27.5.2004 of the Syndicate and the consequential appointment order dtd. 1.6.2004 and accordingly the Syndicate terminated the service of the petitioner without giving him a chance of being heard, whereby there was violation of natural justice.

(2.) UNDER such premises, the petitioner prayed to quash Resolution No. 23, dtd 7.2.2006 of the Syndicate (Annexure -8) and the order of his termination dtd. 11.5.2006 under Annexure -9.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the provision contained under Section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act, the teachers of a University shall be appointed by the Syndicate of that University on the recommendation of the selection committee, after scrutinizing all the papers concerning the selection. Once the Syndicate appoints a candidate, it becomes functus officio and thereafter it has no power to review the appointment order and annul the same. In the present case, when the recommendation of the selection committee was approved by the Syndicate and accordingly the petitioner was given appointment, the Syndicate ceased to have power to review its earlier decision. He further submitted that the petitioner had published a research paper in 'Third Concept' which is an International Journal of ideas. This journal has been assigned a number 'ISSNO; 970 -7247' i.e. International Standard Serial Number 970 -7247. It also publishes articles of internationally reputed persons. So, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no international research publication. The petitioner was awarded 10 marks in research publication out of 15 marks. As per the statute, 10 marks were fixed for publication in International Journal and 5 marks in National Journal. The Selection Committee, which is an expert body in its wisdom, took into consideration the articles published by the petitioner and awarded 10 marks. The said decision cannot be interfered with either by the Syndicate or by the Honourable Chancellor, particularly when it was in consonance with the 2003 statute. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the service of the petitioner was terminated without giving him a chance of hearing, whereby there was violation of natural justice. Hence he urged to allow the writ petition.