PRABHAT KUMAR ROY Vs. RANCHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this application originally prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of salary to him from December, 1990 till date and further directing them not to prevent the petitioner from working and/or from discharging his duties as Assistant Auditor. Subsequently an application for amendment of the writ petition has been filed wherein the petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the notification dated 20-6-1993 issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, terminating his services with effect from December, 1990 as contained in Annexure-13 thereto,

(2.) Petitioner is said to have been appointed as an Assistant Auditor in the scale of pay of RE. 785-1210 by the respondent University by office order dated 9-8-1989, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. Petitioner's father was Registrar of the University and prior to his superannuation he sought for permission of the Vice-Chancellor to proceed on earned leave perperator to his retirement and requested him to appoint his son, namely, the petitioner, who had passed M. Com. examination. Allegedly the aforementioned request was made in terms of a decision of the Syndicate providing for appointment of one of the dependents of an employee of the University on his retirement. The Vice-Chancellor considered the aforementioned request and allegedly as several sanctioned posts of Assistant Auditors were vacant, the petitioner was appointed in his post of Assistant Auditor. However, the payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped from December, 1990 Without any rhyme or reason or without issuing any notice to show cause. The petitioner filed representation before the authorities of the University which are contained in Annexures-4, 4/1 and 5 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, although he had regularly been attending his duties, he was not being allowed to sign the attendance register since 18-1-1993.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioner was not appointed on a vacant sanctioned post which was mandatorily required in terms of Section 35 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, and thus his appointment was absolutely illegal. It was submitted that the petitioner's father who was at the material time Registrar of the University made a proposal for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor and pursuent thereto the petitioner was appointed but the file relating to his appointment is not traceable. It has been submitted that despite the said fact the petitioner has annexed a zoroxed copy of the notes submitted by his father to the Vice-Chancellor and the notes of an Officer of the. University thereupon which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. It has further been contended that at the relevant time Dr. Lal Saheb Singh was the Vice-Chancellor and a large number of illegal appointment/ regularisation had been made in his time. The said matter was brought to the notice of the Chancellor by Dr. Amar Kumar Singh who succeeded him and the Chancellor directed him to take necessary action with regard to the numerous irregular appointments made by the Ex-Vice-Chancellor. Accordingly, a committee was constituted and pursuance of a report submitted by it in several decisions were taken by the University as a result whereof an office order was issued on 2-12-1990 pursuent whereof it was directed that no work should be taken from Class III and Glass IV employees who had not been paid salary on or after 30-11-1988. It was further directed that those persons who had been paid salary after 30-11-1988 their appointments being in complete violation of the University Act would be cancelled and their services were directed to be terminated. A copy of the said order is contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.