HARJIT SINGH Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 1.7.1992 vide which services of the petitioner have been dispensed with by respondent No. 4 as no longer required and also advertisement dated 6.7.1992 by which the post of Lecturer in Punjabi held by the petitioner has been re-advertised.

(2.) Ramgarhia Girls College, Ludhiana (in short the College) managed by its Managing Committee is affiliated to Panjab University, Chandigarh. The College gets grant-in-aid from the State of Punjab to the extent of 95 per cent. All appointments made to the college have to be approved by both the Panjab University, Chandigarh (in short the University) to which college is affiliated as well as the Director Public Instructions (Colleges) Punjab (in short, DPI). Pursuant to advertisement in the year 1990, applications for two posts of the Punjabi lecturers against temporary but likely to continue basis were invited. After interview the candidates were called before the Selection Committee. Mrs. Jagdish Kaur and Jaspal Kaur were selected for the post of Punjabi lecturer whereas the petitioner was placed in the waiting list. As Mrs. Jagdish Kaur failed to join, vide letter dated 14.9.1990 the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in Punjabi on temporary basis. Vide order dated 1.7.1992 petitioner was informed that his services are no longer required w.e.f. 1.7.1992 and he was paid salary of one month in lieu of one month's notice period by way of cheque dated 30.6.1992. Order dated 1.7.1992 is being impugned in this petition inter alia on the ground that under regulation 2.3 of the Regulations as contained in Panjab University Calendar Vol. I, Chapter VIII(E) Edition 1989, a teacher is ordinarily appointed on one year's probation after which he is normally confirmed if his work and conduct is found satisfactory. Under the regulation, it is obligatory on the part of the governing body of the College to notify the teacher in writing before the expiry of one year's probation that whether he has been confirmed or his period of probation has been extended. It has been alleged that no notice whatsoever as contemplated by Regulation 2.3. was issued to the petitioner or served on him informing him that his period of probation has been extended. Consequently on the expiry of one year w.e.f. 14.9.1990 the petitioner was deemed to have been confirmed as lecturer in Punjabi and the petitioner could not have been dismissed or removed from service except after enquiry and that too after he had been informed about the charges against him and given reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. In this respect, reference is made to Sections 2-A, 3 and 4 of the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service Act, 1974 (in short the 1974 Act). Order is also being impugned on the ground that under Section 7 of the 1974 Act an employee of an affiliated college can be retrenched only after the approval of the Director and further the employee who is retrenched is to have preference for appointment to future vacancies. It has been alleged that the order impugned has been passed because of shifting of plus-one and plus-two classes from government and non-govt. affiliated colleges to schools and thus the petitioner could not have been retrenched without the prior approval of the DPI. Another ground on which the order is being impugned is that after the petitioner was removed from service, the Managing Committee vide advertisement in The Tribune dated 6.7.1992, i.e. merely five days after removal, advertised two posts of Lecturer in Punjabi from which it is patent that the college required the services of lecturer in Punjabi and reasons assigned in the offer of termination are vitiated. Advertisement dated 6.7.1992 vide which two posts of Lecturer in Punjabi were advertised is being impugned on the ground that through this advertisement only applications from lady lecturers have been invited and petitioners have been totally excluded from being considered to the post of lecturers. The action of the Managing Committee in seeking to appoint only lady lecturers is contrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India as it discriminates against the petitioner on the ground of sex.

(3.) Written statement on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, i.e. College and the Managing Committee, has been filed by Nirmal Singh, General Secretary, Managing Committee, Ramgarhia Educational Council, Ludhiana. In the written statement it has been submitted that services of the petitioner being temporary were rightly dispensed with and as such he has got no cause of action and cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been averred that the College is a minority institution and is exclusively meant for girls and is protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. On merits, respondents have stated that in view of policy decision of the Government to shift plus-two class from the colleges to senior secondary schools, there was a fall in admission in plus- one class. Admission to plus-one class in the year 1991 was 341 (Arts) whereas in 1992, it was 217 (Arts) meaning thereby that there was a fall of 124 students for admission to plus-one class and on account of this reduction in admission of students to plus-I and plus-II classes, respondents made temporary appointments which were likely to continue. The services of the petitioner which were temporary but likely to continue were rightly dispensed with as the petitioner was junior to all lecturers in Punjabi. In regard to getting 95 per cent grant-in-aid from the State of Punjab, it has been averred that for this post, the Managing Committee is not getting 95 per cant grant-in-aid from the State of Punjab. The DPI had given approval to the post of lecturer held by the petitioner upto 31.3.1991. The allegation of the petitioner that he was appointed on one year's probation has been denied in the written statement. As regards application of regulation 2.3 and sections 3, 4 and 7 of the 1974 Act, respondents have averred that after expiry of one year, services of the petitioner were renewed on 28.8.1991 for a period of one year in accordance with instructions of the University as contained in Format 'A'. Petitioner was informed vide order dated 1.7.1992 that his services were no longer required with effect from 1.7.1992 and in lieu of one month's notice he was given a cheque for one month's salary. As regards the inviting of applications from the lady lecturers, the respondents have submitted that college is exclusively meant for girls and preference is given to the lady lecturers, if suitable lady lecturers are available with requisite qualifications and competence. After dispensing with the services of petitioner, a resolution was passed by the Managing Committee that temporary posts of lady lecturers be advertised and that too for a limited period i.e. temporary upto end of academic session and accordingly, the action was taken. Respondents have denied that the alleged retrenchment of the petitioner has occasioned as a result of decision to induct into service female teachers in the institution. Respondents have stated that it has occasioned as a result of issuance of orders dated 16.6.1989 and 11.2.1992 to DPI whereby a decision had been taken not to allow plus-one class in Arts subject in the college from the academic session 1992-93 and the college had been directed not to admit the students in plus-one class (arts group) from session 1992-93.