KAUSHAL KISHORE VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 02.01.2016, whereby the respondent no. 7 has been made In-charge to carry out the functions of Finance Officer, Ranchi University, Ranchi with effect from 02.01.2016 by resuming the office of Finance Officer without giving any notice or without issuing any termination order to the petitioner and for direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to discharge his duties as Finance Officer, Ranchi University, Ranchi and the petitioner has further prayed for direction to the Ranchi University, Ranchi to treat the petitioner's service as Finance Officer on permanent basis and in continuance till he attains the age of superannuation and the petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the Resolution dated 02.01.2016 of the Syndicate meeting held on 02.01.2016, whereby Syndicate has resolved not to grant extension of tenure to the petitioner for the post of the Finance Officer.

(2.) The brief facts, as narrated in the writ application, is that an Advertisement No. 06 of 2010 was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for recruitment of the Finance Officer in the Ranchi University, Ranchi. The petitioner applied for the said post through proper channel and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission after completion of selection process found the candidature of the petitioner, suitable and accordingly, recommendation has been issued under the signature of the Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi for appointment of the petitioner on the post of the Finance Officer to the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In view of the provisional recommendation of the JPSC, the matter of appointment of the petitioner on the post of the Finance Officer was discussed in the meeting of the Syndicate of Ranchi University, dated 23.09.2011, in which the name of the petitioner was duly approved for appointment subject to the verification of the certificates as evident from Annexure-5 to the writ petition. After verification of the requisite qualification and experiences, the petitioner was appointed as the Finance Officer, Ranchi University, Ranchi vide Notification dated 29.09.2011. The petitioner submitted his representation before the Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi and the same has been accepted by the Ranchi University, Ranchi vide Memo dated 02.01.2012, issued under the signature of the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi. It has been averred in the writ application that no such condition of tenure of appointment was mentioned in the Notification of the appointment of the petitioner but to the utter surprise and consternation, the petitioner came to know the office order of the Ranchi University, Ranchi dated 02.01.2016 issued by the Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi that the respondent no. 7 has been given an additional charge of the post of the Finance Officer of Ranchi University with all financial power as evident from Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2016, the petitioner submitted representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the Ranchi University and the petitioner also submitted an Appeal representation dated 04.01.2016 before His Excellency, the Chancellor of Jharkhand State Universities, Raj Bhawan, Ranchi by requesting to allow him to continue on the post of the Finance Officer of the Ranchi University till attaining the age of superannuation. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.01.2016 vide Annexure-12 and inaction of the respondents in not considering the representation as well as the appeal representation, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in treating the post held by the petitioner as tenure post for a limited period, is de hors of the statute of the University. In order to buttress his submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 2 (v), Section 7, Section 16, Section 36 sub-section (5) and (6) Part II of the Statute, Clause 2 (XVII), Clause (X), Clause (XVIII), Clause 16, Clause 18 and Clause 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the Notification of the appointment of the petitioner, there has been no mention of tenure of the post nor the terms and conditions of the appointment speaks about the post of the Finance Officer as a tenure post, therefore, the respondents in a very arbitrary and illegal manner, have terminated the services of the petitioner from the post of the Finance Officer without issuing any order of termination or notice prior to termination. Learned senior counsel further submits that the act of the respondents is highly arbitrary and is violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, 19 (i) (g) and 311 (i) and (ii) of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that though under the qualification and experience, as mentioned in Serial No. 2 of the Advertisement, it has been stated therein, that direct recruitment would be made for the post of the Finance Officer for the tenure as per the Rule. However, in its clarification, as contained, in Clause (ii), it was nowhere mentioned that the appointment would be for a fixed period. Learned senior counsel has drawn the analogy of Annexure-10 of the writ application, wherein, it has been clarified that in so far as tenure post are concerned, the same are specifically mentioned in the letter of appointment, which was not a condition in the petitioner' appointment but however, clearly mentioned in other appointments, namely, for the post of Controller of Examination and Registrar etc., it clearly mentions that the appointment would be for a period of four years only. Learned senior counsel has referred to the statute for qualification of pay-scale of the post, as has been annexed under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. In this respect, learned senior counsel submits that Clause 1.1.1 (d) of the said statute deals with the qualification and other particulars regarding appointment of Finance Officer and Clause 1.1.1 (f) (i) of the said Statute pertains to tenure of four years but the said provisions are not in conformity with the Act.