NAVEEN BHART Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Fine Arts which was reserved for the members of the Scheduled Caste Category in response to advertisement No. 2/2003 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Kurukshetra University. He was called for interview. On being selected, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer by order dated 27.6.2003 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner joined on the post on 1.7.2003. The petitioner had been working regularly, but for some reason the salary had not been paid to him. He had made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor claiming the salary, on 5.11.2003. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 17.5.2004 (Annexure P-7) in which it is stated that the petitioner is given one month's salary in lieu of notice period as per terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment dated 27.6.2003, as his services are no longer required. It is also stated in the show-cause notice that the petitioner had been appointed against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. The candidature of the petitioner was considered for the post believing that he had given correct information in the application form. It had come to the notice of the respondents that the person belonging to "Chimba" Caste is covered under Backward Class "A" category under the Haryana Government Notification. As such the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed against the post meant for Scheduled Caste Category as he belongs to "Chimba" Caste. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed on the post under mistaken belief that he belongs to the Scheduled category.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondents in issuing order (Annexure P-7) is not sustainable as the order has been passed without complying with the rules of natural justice. The petitioner had been appointed after following the due procedure for selection. The petitioner did not conceal any material fact from the respondents. There was no condition in the advertisement that only the reserved category candidates who are residents of Haryana, would be considered. This condition has now been subsequently incorporated by the respondents in the Advertisement No. 1 of 2004. The petitioner having not misrepresented in any manner, cannot be denied the service. The order (Annexure P-7) clearly causes civil consequence and the same could not have been passed without observing rules of natural justice. In support of the submission, learned counsel relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, 1998(1) S.C.T. 381.