MALWINDER SINGH MALI Vs. PUNJABI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed a Public Relations Officer on 1.4.1998 in the Punjabi University, Patiala (for short the University) on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till the filling of the post on regular basis whichever was earlier. He had passed the Bachelor of Journalist and Master of Journalism and Mass Communication Examination. He claims to have long experience in the fields of Journalism and Public Relations. The University later advertised the post of Public Relations Officer alongwith various other posts inviting applications on the prescribed form. The advertisement appeared in the Daily Tribune on 28.7.1998. The following essential qualifications were prescribed for the post.

(2.) Petitioner who satisfied all the qualification applied for the post. The term of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was, however, extended for, a period of six months from, 3.10.1998 upto 2.4.1999 or till the filling of the post on regular basis whichever was earlier. It is alleged that Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 16.11.1998 resolved to fill up the post of Public Relations Officer and accordingly constituted a committee for making regular selection for the same. The Syndicate in the same meeting also took a policy decision to grant extension to all ad hoc teachers/employees of the University for the time being only upto 31.12.1998 and constituted a committed headed by the Vice Chancellor to examine/review the cases of all ad hoc employees including teachers for the grant of extension beyond 31.12.1998. In pursuance to the decision of the Syndicate the term of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was curtailed up to 31.12.1998 and his services were terminated because the committee set up by the Syndicate did not recommend his case for further extension. After terminating the services of the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor by his order dated 27.1.1999 directed Shri Tarlochan Singh Dhandli, Assistant Public Relations Officer to look after the day to day work of the Public Relations Department of the University. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of making regular selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.7.1998 the University re-advertised the post on 19.4.1999 and substantially lowered the qualifications for the post in order to make Shri Dhandli eligible for the same. It is averred that even a person with third division was made eligible and that in place of Master's degree in Journalism and Mass Communication, mere Diploma was substituted. According to the petitioner the qualifications were tailor-made for Shri Dhandli so that he could be appointed to the post. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that even when his ad hoc appointment had been extended upto 2.4.1999 his term was curtailed upto 31.12.1998 pending regular selection which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Rajni Bala v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1995(4) A.I.J. 394 and Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997(1) S.L.R. 624. The prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing the order by which the extension granted to the petitioner was curtailed to 31.12.1998 and also the advertisement issued in April, 1999. Another prayer made is for a direction to the University to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Public Relations Officer on ad hoc basis till the post is filled up on regular basis in terms of the earlier advertisement issued on 28.7.1998.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the University the allegations made in the writ petition have been controverted. It is admitted that the petitioner was appointed a Public Relations Officer for a period of six months or till the filling of the post on regular basis, whichever was earlier. It is further admitted that his term was extended for a period of six months on 3.10.1998 and that the post of Public Relations Officer was advertised along with other vacant posts in the leading newspapers on 28.7.1998 and that the last date for the receipt of the applications was 27.8.1998. It is averred that after the receipt of the applications for all the posts a ban was imposed by the State Government on filling up of the teaching and non-teaching vacant posts due to the financial crisis in the State and, therefore, the applications received were not processed. It is also pleaded that a letter dated 14.11.1998 was received from the Finance Secretary, Punjab suggesting that prior approval of the State Government be sought for filling up of non-teaching posts in the University. It is also the case of the University that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 16.11.1998 decided to limit the employment of all its ad hoc employees upto 31.12.1998 in view of the letter received from the State Government and, therefore, the extension granted to the petitioner was also curtailed to 31.12.1998. It is not denied that the post of Public Relations Officer was re-advertised in April, 1999. The action of the University is sought to be justified on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the letter of his appointment.