DR.BIJAYA NANDA NAIK Vs. F.M.UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application assails the order of termination of his service passed by the Registrar, Fakir Mohan University in Annexure -24 and prays for confirmation in the University as Professor in Environmental Science.

(2.) PURSUANT to an advertisement issued by the Fakir Mohan University for filling up of the post of Professor in Environmental Science, petitioner submitted his application and was selected for being appointed to the said post on 12.4.2005. Since the petitioner was in Government service, he was permitted to be relieved by the State Government on 9.5.2005 and joined in the post as Professor in Environmental Science on 12.5.2005. The Vice -Chancellor of the said University wrote letters to the petitioner as well as the other Professors in other disciplines in Annexure -6 to send Self Appraisal Forms for the purpose of confirmation in service. On 6.2.2007, the services of many Professors, Readers and Lecturers were confirmed by the University. However, the service of the petitioner was not confirmed and on 13.3.2007 in Annexure -12, opposite party No.3 made serious allegations against the petitioner in the office file which the petitioner came to know from the counter affidavit filed by the University in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4784 of 2007. From the aforesaid counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ application, the petitioner also learnt that an inquiry committee was formed by the Syndicate to enquire into the allegations and after the formal discussions with the petitioner on 17.3.2007 and without discussing or disclosing about any allegation, the enquiry committee on 17.3.2007 submitted its observations against the petitioner. This fact also came to the knowledge of the petitioner from the counter affidavit. It was also stated in the said counter affidavit that the Syndicate considering the report of Enquiry Committee resolved that continuance of the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the department and further resolved to request the Government to revert him back. Pursuant to such decision of the Syndicate, on 22.3.2007 a letter was written by the University not to extend the lien of the petitioner and revert him back with effect from 10.5.2007. The petitioner having come to the University and having been appointed through a selection process, expressed his willingness to continue in the University but he was not confirmed in the post whereas some other Professors in other disciplines were confirmed after their probation period. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.4784 of 2007 and the said writ application was disposed of with a direction to the University to take a decision afresh in accordance with provisions contained in the statute. The said writ application was disposed of on 8.5.2007 and on 18.8.2007 as it appears from Annexure -B to the counter affidavit, a note was again submitted by the Vice -Chancellor reiterating serious allegations and indicating therein that continuance of the petitioner is detrimental to the interest of the University and recommended for termination of the services of the petitioner. On 20.8.2007 the Syndicate accepted the recommendation of the Vice -Chancellor and on the very same day in Annexure -24 an order of termination was passed. Immediately after termination of the services of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court on 29th August, 2007 and on 30th August, 2007 an advertisement was issued in Annexure -25 to fill up the post. This Court while issuing notice on 18.9.2007, as an interim measure, directed that the process of selection in terms of Annexure -25 shall be subject to the result of the writ application and no appointment shall be made without leave of this Court. In view of the above, the post, which fell vacant due to termination of the services of the petitioner, is available to be filled up.

(3.) RELYING on the aforesaid provision, it was contended by the learned counsel for the University that in terms of the said provision, the petitioner was kept on probation for a period of two years and he would have been confirmed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice -Chancellor. However, from the Annual Performance Appraisal Report, the performance of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory by the Vice -Chancellor and accordingly, the matter was placed before the Syndicate for terminating the services of the petitioner and the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice -Chancellor, terminated the services of the petitioner. The order of termination being in consonance with the aforesaid provision, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the allegations made against him and submitted that since the petitioners services have been terminated on such allegations, it amounts to termination with a stigma and, therefore, reasonable opportunity of hearing should have been extended to the petitioner.