J. N. V. UNIVERSITY Vs. SHISHUPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the judgment dated 9.1.97 passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions; quashed the order Annexure 6 qua the petitioners and held that the petitioners, who had completed two years or more academic sessions, they could not have been removed from the service vide Annexure 6 till the regular selections are made.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant university that (i) in the departments where the sanctioned posts were available, the interviews were held and appointments have been made; but in the case of the respondents (petitioners in the writ petitions) the sanctioned posts were not available and, therefore, they were not allowed to continue as in such circumstances no direction was given; (ii) regular selection cannot be held till the posts are sanctioned, for which the recommendations have been made by the University which are under consideration before the Government; (iii) no direction like direction No. 2 in the judgment in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case with respect to non-budget/non-sanctioned post can be given; and (iv) the direction No. 2 which was given on the basis of Narendra Singh's case has been explained by the Supreme Court and the judgment passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to the judgment passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 190/896 (J.N.V. University Vs. Narendra Singh Rathore ).

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the judgment passed by the learned single Judge and submitted that (i) the order terminating the services of the respondents (writ petitioners) passed by the University was wholly without jurisdiction; (ii) it has been passed in flagrant violation of the directions given in Dr. Ifran Mehar's case; (iii) it is discriminatory as the other persons have been retained while the services of the respondents have been dispensed with; (iv) the posts are available in the departments and even the work-load is there but still the services of the respondents have been dispensed with; and (v) the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Narendra Singh Rathore's case is sub-silentio as it has not considered and decided the question and is also per incurium.