SURJIT MISREE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has two-fold grievance. Firstly, he impugns the order dated June 23, 1993 by which his services were terminated by respondent No. 3. Secondly, the petitioner complains that respondent No. 2 has not considered the petitioner's claim for absorption in any Govt. aided college in spite of the instructions embodied in the letter dated January 29, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner served as a Lecturer in English at the National Jubilee College, Rewari, from September 7, 1974 to March 31, 1981. The petitioner alleges that his services were terminated on account of the decision of the management to close the college. On January 29, 1988, the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, issued instructions to the Principal, Jat College, Rohtak regarding absorption of one Mr. Mahabir Parsad, a Lecturer in Political Science. In this letter it was inter alia observed that "due to closure of this College, it has been decided that the staff which has become surplus is to be absorbed in other private Colleges". Claiming that he was similarly situated, the petitioner submitted a representation dated April 29, 1988 to the Department for his absorption. In spite of repeated representations, no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition, with a prayer that the respondents be directed to consider his claim for absorption. The Motion Bench directed the issue of notice of motion. In spite of the opportunity having have granted, no written statement was filed. Ultimately, on August 31, 1989, the Division Bench passed the following order :-

(3.) Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement filed by the college, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had been appointed purely on ad hoc basis on the directions of the Director, Higher Education, Haryana. The college was not a party in the writ petition as originally filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Management is not in contravention of the interim directions given by this Court and that a Contempt Petition No. 547 of 1993 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court vide its order dated July 23, 1993. Regarding the termination of the petitioner's services, it has been pointed out that the College has discontinued the +1 class in pursuance to the directions given by the Director, Higher Education vide letter dated July 5, 1989. As a result, no admission was made to the said class in the year 1993-94. Accordingly, the petitioner had become surplus. He was the junior-most person and was working on purely ad hoc basis. Consequently, his services were terminated. The petitioner's claim that he had been selected for regular appointment has been controverted. It has been inter alia averred that the post was advertised on November 20, 1988. Mrs. Deepti Dharmani was selected for appointment as Lecturer in English. The petitioner was placed at No. 2. As Mrs. Deepti Dharmani did not join the post, the college had decided to readvertise it in June, 1989. It is also claimed that the order was legal, just and fair and had been passed in conformity with the petitioner's terms of appointment.