9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1395 - HC - Indian LawsTermination of the petitioner s services - Authority of the Chancellor to review its own decision after a significant lapse of time - review of own order by the Hon ble Chancellor after a gap of more than 8 years - HELD THAT - It is quite evident that the ground for termination of service of the petitioner is not in consonance with the law since the Provision under section 57(2) (C) of the University Act was complied along with considering the Advertisement as well as subsequent action of the Vinoba Bhave University by which the vacancy position of the Assistant Registrar was intimated to the Commission before appointments were made and taking into consideration the entire aspects of the matter the petitioner was appointed in the year 2006. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that in the Advertisement No. 2/2004 all the five posts of Assistant Registrar was indicated under the Ranchi University but at the same time; at Sl.No.1 of the Advertisement necessary directions was stipulated that the post of Deputy Registrar Assistant Registrar Assistant Librarian can be changed (reduced or enhanced) and the persons appointed can be transferred/adjusted against any of the three Universities. The Hon ble Chancellor was having no fresh ground to review its own order directing the University to terminate the services of the petitioner. The grounds upon which the services of the petitioner has been terminated was communicated by the Vice Chancellor Vinoba Bhave University to the Hon ble Chancellor showing his reluctance for towards the appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter before the appointment of the petitioner the said issue was overcome and the direction was given by the Hon ble Chancellor to appoint the petitioner - The ground which was already adjudicated cannot be taken into consideration for terminating the services of the petitioner that too after more than 7 years of appointment and hence the decision taken by the Hon ble Chancellor is not in consonance with the law. The suo-motu power of initiation of revisional proceeding has to be exercised within a reasonable period of time and what is a reasonable period of time would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case the appointment was made vide letter no. 2029 dated 12.01.2006 that too after the objection raised by the respondent University before the Hon ble Chancellor; who in turn directed to respondent University to appoint the petitioner - the order of review of own order by the Hon ble Chancellor after a gap of more than 8 years is not in consonance with the law. The impugned order as contained in Memo No. 1963/2014 dated 15.10.2014 whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect is quashed and set aside. The Respondent authorities are directed to ensure that all consequential benefits pursuant to setting aside the impugned order be given to the petitioner within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order - the impugned order is fit to be quashed. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of the petitioner's services. 2. Compliance with the provisions of the Jharkhand State University Act. 3. Authority of the Chancellor to review its own decision after a significant lapse of time. 4. The role and recommendations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). 5. The impact of the absence of a requisition from Vinoba Bhave University for the appointment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Termination of the Petitioner's Services: - The petitioner challenged the termination of his services, arguing that the termination was not in consonance with the law. The court found that the termination was based on grounds that had already been adjudicated and resolved prior to the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner's appointment had been confirmed by the Syndicate of Vinoba Bhave University after the completion of the probation period, and no fresh grounds were presented to justify the termination. The court concluded that the decision to terminate the petitioner's services was not justified and was fit to be quashed. 2. Compliance with the Provisions of the Jharkhand State University Act: - The petitioner argued that the provisions under Section 57(2)(C) of the University Act were complied with, as the vacancy position for the Assistant Registrar was communicated to the JPSC before appointments were made. The court agreed, noting that the necessary procedures were followed, and the advertisement clearly indicated that the posts could be adjusted among the three universities. The court found that the appointment process was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the University Act. 3. Authority of the Chancellor to Review its Own Decision: - The court examined whether the Chancellor had the authority to review its own decision after an eight-year lapse. It referenced several precedents, emphasizing that while the Chancellor has the power to review decisions, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. The court determined that the eight-year delay in reviewing the decision was not reasonable, especially since the grounds for termination had been previously resolved. The court concluded that the Chancellor's decision to review and terminate the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the law. 4. The Role and Recommendations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC): - The JPSC had recommended the petitioner for the appointment, and the appointing authority, Vinoba Bhave University, had initially complied with this recommendation. The court noted that while the appointing authority has the power to differ from the JPSC's recommendation, it must do so with valid reasons. In this case, the court found no new reasons to justify deviating from the JPSC's recommendation, further supporting the validity of the petitioner's appointment. 5. The Impact of the Absence of a Requisition from Vinoba Bhave University: - The petitioner argued that the absence of a formal requisition from Vinoba Bhave University did not invalidate the appointment, as the advertisement was known to all relevant universities and the vacancy was communicated to the JPSC. The court found that the university's actions and the subsequent approval of the appointment by the Syndicate indicated acceptance of the process. The court rejected the argument that the lack of a requisition invalidated the appointment. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order of termination, directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner and provide all consequential benefits within four months. The writ application was allowed, and the interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.
|
