YUDHISTER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this petition has been filed by three petitioners, namely Yudhishter Kumar Gupta, Dr. Jagmohan Bindlish and miss Anil Kumari, name of petitioner No.2 was deleted on 17.9.1987 and at the commencement of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement that he is not pursuing the petition on behalf of petitioner No.3 due to lack of appropriate instructions. Consequently decision of this writ petition is confined to the claim of petitioner- Yudhishter Kumar Gupta.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that petitioner Yudhister Kumar Gupta was appointed as a Lecturer in Rural Industrialisation in RKSD College, Kaithal, with effect from 26.8.1983. His appointment was approved by the University of Kurukshetra as would appear from letter Annexure A/3, which respondents No. 3 & 4 have placed on the record of the Court alongwith their reply to CM No. 7734/1993. Initially appointment of the petitioner was on probation of one year. The governing Body of the College considered the question of confirmation of various teachers. Some of the lecturers were cleared for confirmation. In cases of some others, including the petitioner Yudhister Kumar Gupta, it was resolved by the Governing Body to extend the period of probation by one year. This was done on the ground that the Principal required more time to judge the capability of those teachers to control the classes. After about one year the President of the Governing Body conveyed to the Principal of the College and the petitioner vide his letter dated 21.8.1985 the decision of the governing Body to terminate the petitioner's service. Similar decisions were conveyed to the other lecturers. The petitioner challenged the action of the Governing Body in terminating his service by filing appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. After hearing the petitioner and the representatives of the Management, the Director expressed the view that the reports of the Principal regarding the work of the petitioner were far from being credible. The Director also opined that the performance of the Lecturers can not be termed as. low. Notwithstanding these conclusions, the Director dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellants had failed to make out a case of malafide intention on the part of the Management. Dissatisfied with the order of the Director, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, to the Government of Haryana. This revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.9.1986. The Commissioner agreed with the Director, Higher Education that the reports written by the Principal about the work and conduct of the appellant were not credible. He, however, rejected the plea of the petitioner about malafides of the Management. He relied on the Management's version regarding reduction of the work load and held that no interference with the decision of the Management. was called for. he, therefore, dismissed the revision petition, subject to a direction that the petitioner and Jagmohan Bindlish would have a first claim to be appointed as lecturers in the respective subjects in the College, if any vacancy in that particular subject arises.

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the action taken by the Management on the ground that it was in violation of Rule 20 of Chapter II of the Kurukshetra University Calendar Volume I. Plea of the petitioner is that in the event of reduction in the work load, the management of the college was required to intimate the University the factum of reduction in work load and its intention to retrench the services of the teachers. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 20(v) of the Kurukshetra University Calender, he ought to have been retained as a part-time lecturer because the number of periods taken by him even on the basis of the reduced work load was more than eight. Another plea raised by the petitioner is that respondent No.4 has manipulated termination of his service because of personal ill-will. The petitioner was supposed to be a person, supported by the rival faction in the Governing Body and as a close relative of the friend of the petitioner had supported the rival candidate at the time of election to the covering Body of the College, respondent No.4 had made him victim of his personal venegance.