KEWAL KISHAN TALWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Lecturer/professor, is challenging the order of compulsory retirement Annex. 1 dated May 5, 1995 passed by the respondents, on various grounds.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer/professor on August 1, 1969 with the respondent No. 2 Seth G. L. Bihani S. D. College, Sri Ganganagar, which is an aided institution and was confirmed in the year 1971. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 is an educational society registered under the Societies Registration Act and is getting 80% aid from the State Government and is, therefore, 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is stated by the petitioner that throughout his service of about 26 years, there was nothing adverse against him or in any case, no adverse remarks had ever been communicated to the petitioner. It is alleged that he had been victimised and chosen for compulsory retirement for the reason that he had pointed out the fact that the President of the Society had not utilised the amount of Rs. 91,000/-, which was given by the State Government for the development. He had objected and pointed out and raised this point with the Union of India. He had also sent reminders to the President of the Society for depositing this amount. For this action of the petitioner, the President became annoyed and had threatened that he would terminate the services of the petitioner and ultimately on May 5, 1995 vide Annex. 1 the petitioner was removed from service by way of compulsory retirement without even consulting the Principal of the College and even the College Principal had resigned in protest later on. It is stated that the Principal had also written a letter to the President for depositing the amount of Rs. 91,000/-vide letter dated June 18, 1993 Annex. 3. The letter has been placed on record written by Shri P. L. Modi, Principal to the Secretary of the society to the fact that because of the reason that the petitioner had been compulsorily retired illegally, the Principal also did not want to remain in service and he, too, had resigned. It is stated by the petitioner that when the students came to know of such an action of the management, they raised great hue and cry and even whole of the public of the city was agitating and the citizens of the city had even constituted a 'sangharsh Samiti' and also filed representations. Even some of the daily newspapers had also highlighted this fact about the mis-management on the part of the management. The public had raised their voice against the victimisation of the petitioner as well as of the Principal Shri Modi.

(3.) IT is stated that the impugned order could not be passed as no procedure has been prescribed as required under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act' ). It is further submitted that Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner nor any public interest was involved. It is further submitted that appointment, termination and promotion of the employees are controlled and governed by the statutory rules, byelaws and the competent authority for taking such action should only be the Executive Committee but in the instant case, the Executive Committee had not passed any order for taking a decision of compulsory retirement in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner is also challenging the impugned action being arbitrary, mala fide, and against the rules. It is also stated that the Secretary had no power to issue the impugned order in the absence of any resolution of the Executive Committee and, thus, the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it is prayed by the petitioner that the impugned order be quashed.