SHITANSHU SHEKHAR RATH Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor, Veterinary Parasitology, College of Veterinary Science, Punjab Agricultural University, vide orders dated March 24,1990. This appointment was made on ad hoc basis "still the joining back of the regular incumbent of the post........." The petitioner actually joined duties on May 16, 1990. On July 2,1990, Dr. A.K. Sangwan, regular incumbent of the post of Assistant Professor, appears to have joined and submitted his resignation. This resignation was accepted on July 4, 1990. The petitioner continued to hold the post and vide letter dated October 6, 1990, the Head of the Department under whom the petitioner was working recommended that the services of the petitioner be regularised. It was also observed that "Dr. S.S. Rath is performing his duties quite well on the present post." On January 28,1991, the Registrar issued an order observing that "in pursuance of decision of Board of Management taken in its 125th meeting held on 15.11.90 the Vice Chancellor hereby regularises the services of Sh. S.S. Rath, Assistant Professor of Veterinary Parasitology." It appears that on some objections having been raised by the auditors, the Vice Chancellor passed an order on May 6,1991 observing that the petitioner should have been relieved on the joining of Dr. A.S. Sangwan on July 2,1990. A copy of this order sent by the Registrar to the Dean of the College has been produced as Annexure P-6 with the replication filed by the petitioner. In this letter, the date originally typed was 6.9.91. However, in the replication with which this document has been produced the date mentioned is 6.5.91. It appears that this letter from the Registrar was referred back by the office of the College of Veterinary Science to the Vice Chancellor. A copy of the note, which is stated to be dated May 19, 1991 has been produced as Annexure P-7. In this note, it has been inter alia mentioned that "since the joining of Dr. Sangwan was notional, so break in service of Dr. Rath was also notional". It has been further mentioned that" it is a proven fact that orders of regularisation were passed after observing all the formalities for recruitment. This case was recommended by the competent Selection Committee for orders and appointment was subsequently approved by the Board.' The note further states that "another point to be seen in that he has not been paid his salary with effect from July 1990 whereas he has actually worked. The University has no right to deny his wages for this period. Having once regularised his service, it is not judicious to remove him unceremoniously without giving him any opportunity,' The note goes on to State that "if he is removed, the teaching work of the department will get dislocated. There are three posts of Assistant Professors out of which only one is filled which is occupied by him. As on account of peak teaching load of undergraduate studies, there will be no teacher to share this burden. His relieving shall, thus. not be in the interest of the institution. On these premises, it was observed that "we may request the Vice Chancellor to reconsider the case." In spite of this, the Registrar conveyed an order to the Dean, vide a tetter dated June 20,1991. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P-8 with the replication. The date typed on this document is June 20, 1990. However, in the affidavit filed by the petitioner with which this document has been produced, the date has mentioned as June 20,1991 in paragraph No. 9. In view of the sequence of events the correct date appears to be June 20, 1991. By this order, the Registrar conveyed the following orders passed by the Vice Chancellor:

(2.) When the petition was originally filed by the petitioner on June 20, 1991, it appears that he did not have all the documents. Accordingly, a number of document have been produced only with the replication. In the petition, the action of the respondents in withholding the salary of the petitioner from November, 1990 as also for ordering to relieve him retrospectively with effect from July 2,1990 after he had been regularised has been challenged primarily on two grounds. It has been averred that the service of the petitioner having been regularised, no action could have been taken against him without the grant of an opportunity. It has been further averred that the action of the respondents in not paying him the salary and in terminating his services retrospectively is wholly illegal.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Registrar of the University. It has been inter alia stated that on the joining back of the regular incumbent of the post of Assistant Professor (Sh. A.K. Sangwan) on July 2,1990, the service of the petitioner stood automatically terminated. It has been further slated that the service of the petitioner had been regularised by the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendations from the Head of the Department and the Dean of the College. Since correct facts had not been disclosed, the regularisation itself was illegal and the mistake could be rectified. It is averred that the order of regularisation had been withdrawn by the Competent Authority as the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the University after July 2,1990. It has also been suggested that the Head of the Department was twisting the facts to favour the petitioner and had, thus, not relieved him. It has been further stated that on the joining back of the regular incumbent of the post, the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated without any notice. Consequently, he was not entitled to any opportunity to show cause etc A reply has also been filed to the replication. Primarily the reply suggests that the Head of the Department and the Dean had not given the facts accordingly.