BHIM CHAND GOYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhim Chand Goyal has filed the present civil writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition to quash the condition to terminate the services of the petitioner on 31.3.1996 or earlier on 24 hours notice' be quashed and he be allowed to continue till the post of Lecturer in Commerce continues in Public College, Samana and he be treated as a regular Lecturer in Commerce with all rights and benefits.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that the post of Lecturer in Commerce was advertised as per advertisement dated 18.6.1995 (Annexure P.15) by the Managing Committee, Public College, Samana through its Chairman and the petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer on regular basis. He was called for interview by the Principal vide letter No. 2932 dated 12.7.1995 (Annexure P.16). The petitioner alleges that Miss Preet Kamal, daughter of Shri S.S. Sodhi, respondent No.6 who is the Principal of said college could not appear in the interview held on 20.7.1995. The petitioner was selected for the post which was vacant w.e.f. 10.11.1995. The appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for the regular post of Lecturer in Commerce and was selected against the post but since Miss Preet Kamal, daughter of respondent No.6 could not appear in the interview, therefore, it was observed that none of the candidates was found suitable for the regular appointment. The basic intention behind this was that Managing Committee wanted to select and appoint respondent No.5 and she could not appear in the interview, therefore, ad hoc appointment was given to the petitioner despite the fact that post was on regular basis and there was no rule for appointment on ad hoc basis. The appointment of petitioner was made up to 31.3.1996. The petitioner prays in his writ petition that he is entitled to be treated having been appointed on regular basis till the time the post of Lecturer in Commerce continues in the College.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No.4 to 6 and a preliminary objection was taken that the petitioner is stopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the appointment letter as having already been accepted by him. He was selected by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of selection of lecturers in Commerce on 20.7.1995. He appeared in the interview and was found suitable and as such he was offered an appointment order on ad hoc basis only up to 31.3.1996. He is estopped from challenging the same once after working in the Institution and accepting the terms of appointment. On merits, the stand of these respondents is that 15 candidates had applied for the post of Lecturer in Commerce whereas 4 candidates appeared in the interview including the petitioner. As the selection board was not satisfied with the performance of the candidates, the selection committee unanimously decided to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on ad hoc basis and also recommended for the re- advertisement of the post whichever is early. Annexure R-4/1 is the record of the proceedings of the a selection committee. These respondents further submitted that selection committee constituted of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Samana being the Chairman, the representative of the Director. Public Instructions, representative of the office of Vice-Chancellor, Dr. S.K. Arora subject- expert of University, Dr. B.S. Bhatia, Subject-expert from the University; Pritpal Singh Handa, Head of the Department of the Public College, Samana and the Principal of the College Mr. S.S. Sodhi. It was the satisfaction of the Selection Committee whom to appoint and whom not to appoint. No other candidate was found suitable and in order to see that the work of the Institution does not suffer in mid-session, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis up to 31.3.1996. The petitioner never objected to his appointment on ad hoc basis when the appointment letter was given to him. The respondent denied that ad hoc appointment was given to the petitioner in order to accommodate respondent No.5 who has already been selected as Lecturer in the Punjabi University. In short the stand of these respondents is that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis upto 31.3.1996 and his services could be terminated in terms of his appointment letter and he is not entitled to claim appointment on regular basis.