RAKESH KUMAR Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was appointed Lecturer in English by the Swami Swantaranand Memorial College, Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur, on August 1, 1988. Under the dictates of the University Grants Commission the Syndicate of the Guru Nanak Dev University had made a decision, which was prevalent at the relevant time that all appointments of Lecturers/Teachers of private colleges affiliated with the University would require approval not only from the University but also from the Punjab Government. On the appointment of the petitioner on August 1, 1988, the College sought approval of the University and of the Government. The Government was prompt enough, if we may say so, in according approval on October 17, 1988, to the appointment of the petitioner. The University rather dragged its feet. Undeniably, there was a clog against the petitioner's approval, for he had obtained more than 50 per cent marks in his M.A. English examination. Lateron, on March 23, 1989, the Syndicate amended its earlier decision by raising marks of lecturers to 55 per cent in M.A. Had the case of the petitioner been approved within the period from August, 1983 till March 23, 1989, undisputably not a ward could be said against the appointment of the petitioner. Now since the decision has been amended, and that too at the instance of the University Grants Commission, the Guru Nanak Dev University has in April 1989 turned down approval of the appointment of the petitioner, which has given rise to this petition. We have heard learned counsel and perused the pleadings. We have decided to dispose of this petition at this stage itself.

(2.) The facts of this case have analogy in the civil system of justice in the State. It is well known that a plaintiff coming to Court is entitled to the relief, whatever due, as if it was to be given to him on the day of his approach. On that principle, when the petitioner's case for approval had been sent to the University and the Government approval could not be stopped from any quarter. Rather we repeat here that the Government rightly did accord approval to the case of the petitioner. The University just sat on the matter for reasons which are obscure. Then later it did not lie in the mouth of the University to turn round and say that the Syndicate had amended its decision requiring better performance of M.A. Lecturers. It has been emphasised by Mr. Mongia, learned counsel appearing for the University, that the Syndicate was clear enough to say that the amended decision would apply to the present incumbents also. As hinted earlier, the right of the petitioner had to be determined on the day when his approval had been sought. Later vagaries had to be kept aside. The decision of the Syndicate could operate in future, and the present incumbent stood cleared of the amended requirement, as otherwise, it would be wholly unfair and arbitrary in the circumstances. The impugned action and order of the University otherwise is not justified for the reason that the petitioner had 54.6 per cent marks in M.A. a fraction of .4 per cent less than the requisite. We do not appreciate the stance of the University in being so stringent about the percentage in the instant case because rounding off is a principle which is recognised almost everywhere and the University would have been well advised to make the petitioner eligible as well. Mr. Mongia, at the stage, expressed his difficulty by saying that prior to March 23, 1989, the University had been rounding off percentages in such like cases of lecturers to their advantage but by virtue of the directions of the University Grants Commission, the process of rounding off had of late been stopped. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner is marginal to the time of the amended decision. His case would go clearing the way under the unamended decision.

(3.) Besides, the petitioner has been in service for more than a year. Non-approval would mean that he would be kicked out by the College authorities. This would be to tally unfair to the petitioner, for the University took long to decide the matter. In this situation and for what has been stated above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondent-University to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner forthwith. No costs. A.L. Bahri, J. -