CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August 14, 1992 by which the letter of appointment issued to him on July 14,1992 for the post of Laboratory Technician at the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, was withdrawn. First, the facts.

(2.) The petitioner has passed the B.Sc. (Medical) examination. He has worked as a Laboratory Technician in the Department of Micro-Biology at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. On August 4, 1991, the Punjab Agricultural University advertised four posts of Laboratory Technicians in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-264. the petitioner fulfilled these qualifications and submitted his application. He appeared for the interview. Vide letter dated July 14,1992, a copy of which has been produced a Annexure P-5 with the writ petition, the petitioner was given an offer of appointment. He was called upon to furnish the medical fitness certificate before joining the service. Vide letter dated July 21, 1992, the petitioner communicated his acceptance. He was medically examined and found to be fit. A certificate dated July 22,1992 was issued to him by the Medical Officer of the University. However, when he went to join the duty, he was asked to meet the vice Chancellor as well as the Dean. The petitioner avers that "certain blue-eyed boys of Agriculture Minister, Punjab, could not be accommodated and the Minister had consequently issued directions to hold interviews afresh and to select the boys recommended by him." As a result, he was not permitted to join the post. He submitted a representation dated August 1, 1992. Thereafter, the impugned impugned order dated August 14, 1992. A copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-9 with the writ petition was received by him. The offer of appointment issued to him was withdrawn. Aggrieved by this order, he has approached this court through this writ petition. The petitioner challenges the action as being wholly arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. He also invokes the principle of Promissory Estoppel.

(3.) No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the respondents produced the relevant note on the file. A photocopy of the note dated August 11,1992 put up by the Dean, College of veterinary Sciences and the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor thereon, has been taken on record as Marck A'. A perusal of this note shows that initially 9 posts of Laboratory Technicians were available. One of these posts was converted into that of Technician (Museum). The remained 8 posts were advertised within the University. Only four applications were received. Out of the four applications, only two candidates who were working as Senior Laboratory Assistants fulfilled the prescribed qualifications. The committee appointed by the University to consider the cases of the candidates recommended the names of these two candidates. On examination of the recommendation, it was found that the post of Senior Laboratory Assistant on which they were working, carried the same scale of pay as the post of Laboratory Technician. Consequently, a clarification was sought from the Registrar of the University with regard to the entitlement of these persons to compete for the posts. The Registrar opined that since they were working in an identical scale of pay, they were not eligible to compete for the post of Laboratory Technician. However, the Vice Chancellor ordered that the two candidates recommended by the committee be appointed by transfer. Presumably, in view of the fact that no eligible candidates were available for the remaining six posts, it was decided to issue an advertisement in the Press. A selection was held. However, "before the recommendations of the Selection Committee could be sent to the Vice Chancellor for approval, a representation was received through the V.C. from the PAU workers' Union on 4.10.91." After considering the demand of the Union and the recommendations made by the Dean, the Vice Chancellor relaxed the qualifications to accommodate the employees of the University. Matriculates with the prescribed experience were declared eligible. The posts were again advertised within the University. Still, only four applications were received. The interview was fixed for February 17, 1992. The Workers' Union again intervened. The posts were re-advertised. Still, no fresh candidates applied. The Union again represented that the applications should have been invited from a different category of employees. In the meantime, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the University, four candidates including the petitioner had been selected. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor approved the filling up of four posts by appointing the candidates selected by the Committee. As a result, letter of appointment was issued to the four candidates vide Annexure P-5 to the writ petition. After the petitioner had conveyed his acceptance, the President of the Workers' Union met the Vice Chancellor on August 10, 1992. A meeting was held which was attended by the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar, the Dear, College of Vetenary Sciences and the President of the Workers' Union. In this meeting, it was resolved that the orders of appointment to the above persons be withdrawn immediately. After noticing the sequence of events, the Dean pointed out in the note that the action of the University may entail legal complications. On August 13, 1992, the Vice Chancellor observed that some of the running schemes in the University having been terminated, it may be necessary to make certain adjustments. Accordingly, he ordered that "all the four appointment orders are withdrawn." This is the sequence of events.