NAVIN KUMAR MISHRA Vs. LALIT NARAYAN MITHILA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application the petitioners, who are 57 in number, pray for quashing of the notification issued by the Registrar, of the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Rameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'), as contained in Annexure 4, where their services have been terminated with effect from the date of Notification, i.e. 7-5-1985,

(2.) MR. Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners brings to my notice that the Supreme Court in a similar situation has passed an order in writ petition No. 409 of 1991 disposed of on 25th September, 1991. He has produced the photo-copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court. He submitted that in the present case also the services of the petitioners were terminated by one stroke of pen even without giving them a show-cause notice. MR. Jha submitted that most of the petitioners were appointed in a regular manner after due advertisement and selection, still their services have been terminated without giving any reason. He further submitted that even though the impugned notification purports to be based on the order of the Syndicate but, in fact, no such decision was ever taken by the Syndicate. He also submitted on the contrary there was an agreement between the Employees' Association and the Vice-Chancellor on 11-2-1985 in which it was agreed upon, inter alia, that the employees working as on that date shall be allowed to continue and the petitioners were appointed much before the said agreement was entered into between the Employees' Association and the Vice-Chancellor. Learned Counsel also stated that even out of these 57 employees about 15 to 20 of them have already been taken back in the service of the University.

(3.) BOTH the learned Counsel have, however, very fairly suggested that the matter can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to the University to reconsider the grievances of the petitioners in the light of the agreement (Annexure 2) as also the direction of the Supreme Court, referred to above, given a similar case, as claimed by Mr. Jha,