GURDISH SAINI Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were selected and appointed as Lecturers in English at the Doaba College, Jalandhar. This appointment was initially made on Temporary basis against substantive vacancies. It was approved by the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab, Chandigarh as well as by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. After the petitioners had worked for more than two years, the college sought the approval of the University for treating the petitioners as on probation with effect from the date of appointment. This proposal was declined by the University vide order dated October 15, 1991. Another effort made by the college having met with the same fate, the petitioners whose continuance in service was threatened have approached this court through this writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) Amongst others, three posts of Lecturers in English had become available in the college in the year 1989. The first of these vacancies had occurred on February 11,1989 on account of the death of the incumbent, Mr. D. D. Sandal. The other two vacancies had arisen on March 29,1989 and May 28,1989 as the lecturers concerned had submitted their resignations. The college had then issued an advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of lecturers including the three posts in the subject of English. The advertisement may be usefully reproduced. It reads as under:-

(3.) It is the admitted position that in response to this advertisement, 37 candidates had submitted applications for appointment against the post of Lecturers in English. The interview was held on August 8,1989, 33 candidates had appeared for interview. The 3 petitioners were admittedly found to be best in order of merit. They were selected. Letters of appointments were accordingly issued to them. The petitioners have produced the orders of appointment as Annexures P-3 to P-5 with the petition. One of these letters is Annexure P-3. In this order of appointment it was specifically mentioned that "the duly constituted Selection Committee had selected you for the post of Lecturer in English on temporary basis in the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000 upto July 31,1992. You will be granted annual increment only if the D.P.I. (c), Punjab, has no objection. You will not be confirmed during the period of temporary appointment, your appointment will be subject to the approval by the G.N.D. University, Amritsar and D.P.I. (Colleges), Punjab, Chandigarh. The nature of your appointment will be reviewed in July, 1992, you have to join against substantive vacancy covered under 95% deficit scheme. You will have to deposit notice period salary of 3 months in case you want to leave service". Identical letters were issued to the three petitioners. In accordance with the procedure prescribed by the University, the college teachers return was submitted in respect of the petitioners as well and a copy thereof has been produced as Annexure P-6. In this return, it has been specifically indicated that the appointments had been made against substantive vacancies. These appointments were duly approved by the University vide its letter dated June 20,1990. Identical letters were sent to the three petitioners. Copies of these letters have been produced on record as Annexures P-7 to P-9. More than a year later, the Principal of the college sought the approval of the University for the appointment of the petitioners "on probation from the date of their joining". It was specifically mentioned that these appointments had been made against substantive posts and were filled through a regularly constituted selection committee. An identical communication was sent on the same date to the Director Public Instructions (Colleges). On October 15, 1991, the Registrar of the University informed the Principal that "it is not possible to give approval to the appointments of the said three lecturers on probation from the date of their joining-----So section may be taken to fill-up their vacancies by advertising posts on permanent basis." A copy of this communication has been produced as Annexure P-13 with the writ petition. The college sought reconsideration of the matter. On January 2,1992, the Principal of the college had addressed a detailed communication. It was clearly pointed out that there were 13 substantive posts of Lecturers in English in the college and three had fallen vacant prematurely. These vacancies were duly advertised and after interviewing as many as 33 candidates, the Selection Committee had selected the three petitioners. It was further pointed out that the posts were not stated to be temporary. In fact, it was stipulated in the advertisement that these were temporary but likely to be made permanent. It was further pointed out that this was so done "on account of the fact that Plus I and Plus II classes were likely to be transferred to the schools and the college wanted to safe-guard against any likely reduction in the number of posts of lecturers..........". Besides pointing out certain other facts, the Principal also observed that "the contingency visualised at the time of their appointment no longer exists" and they have rendered satisfactory service of more than 2 years and have completed the requisite maximum period of probation of two years. The question of readvertising posts could arise in case they had been appointed against temporary vacancies (which may have fallen vacant permanendy later on or on ad hoc basis". The procedure prescribed was duly followed. On these premises he requested the University to review its order and to give its approval to the appointment of the petitioners on probation with effect from the date of their appointment in 1989. Even the three petitioners made representation to the University. While the Director of Public Instructions (Colleges) conveyed his approval to the proposal sent by the College, vide his order dated March 26,1992 (Copy of this order is Annexure P-17) the Universuy remained adamant and vide communication dated May 22,1992, it informed the college that "the earlier decision of the Vice-Chancellor regarding the above mentioned three Lecturers in English conveyed vide letter No. 3559/Coll. dated 15.10.1991 stands". Apprehending re- advertisement of posts and termination of their services the petitioners have approached this Court through this writ petition. The action of the University in refusing to accord approval to their appointment on probation has been challenged as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitutioa