SANKAR PRASAD BHUYNA Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Faculty in the Department of Zoology of Utkal University and retired as Professor, has filed this application to quash the order dated 16.12.2002 reverting him to the post of Reader with retrospective effect, and consequential rejection of the appeal as well as representation of the petitioner by the Chancellor vide orders dated 15.02.2003 and 26.02.2007 in Annexure11 Annexure-12(B) respectively.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was appointed temporarily as Professor of Zoology against the Lien vacancy of Dr. (Mrs) P. MohantyHejmadi up to 15.07.1998 in the P.G. Department of Zoology, Utkal University in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7300/- pursuant to the decision of the Syndicate and subsequent order of the Vice-Chancellor, after following regular process of selection, in response to which he joined on 29.11.1997. The petitioner was directed to hold the office as whole-time Director of Academic Staff College, Utkal University temporarily, pursuant to order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 29.06.1998 (which was communicated by the Registrar vide office order dated 17.07.1998), as a consequence of which he held such post with effect from 30.06.1998 in addition to the post of Professor of Zoology in the P.G. Department. Consequent upon joining of Dr.(Mrs)P. Mohanty-Hejmadi, the petitioner was reverted to his parent post, as Reader of Zoology, with effect from 01.07.1998 while working as wholetime Director of Academic Staff College. But the said order of reversion dated 10.08.1998 of the petitioner to the post of Reader was withdrawn, vide order dated 26.04.2000, and consequentially, he was holding the post of Professor of Zoology.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, having retired from the post of Professor, could not have been reverted to the post of Reader after two and half years with retrospective effect. The retrospective change of service condition is not permissible in view of the fact that a right had already been accrued in favour of the petitioner and that vested right should not have been taken away by an administrative order without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that once the petitioner was repatriated from the post of Director, Academic Staff College and allowed to hold his former post of Professor, P.G. Department of Zoology against an existing vacancy created due to retirement of Dr.P.Mohanty-Hejmadi, pursuant to order dated 30.05.2000, and the same having been acted upon by the petitioner by joining in the said post on 31.05.2000, and he having been superannuated from service on 31.05.2000 on attaining the age of superannuation, he could not have been reverted to the post of Reader and extended with the benefits available to the said post, after two and half years on 16.12.2002, though on the last date of his retirement he was holding the post of Professor and was entitled to get the benefits of the said post. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar, 1971 2 SCC 330; Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, 1997 6 SCC 623; J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011 6 SCC 570; State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, 2013 AIR(SC) 3383; and Ramadhar Pandey v. State of U.P., 1993 Supp3 SCC 35.