Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 98 (ALL)

K. K. Singh v. Gorakhpur University

1993-02-03

R.A.SHARMA, V.K.KHANNA

body1993
Judgment V.K. Khanna, J. 1. The two petitioners were appointed as Assistant Directors, Department of Adult Continuing and Extension Education, University of Gorakhpur by the Vice-Chancellor by his order dated 22-11-1991 The State of Uttar Pradesh issued direction on 24-2-1992 regarding the regular appointment on the posts which are vacant. This direction of the State Government was issued under section 21(3) of the U.P. State Universities Act. According to the petitioners on the strength of the said order of the respondent No. 4, the respondent no. 1 has issued office memo on 13-3-1992 by which all appointments including the appointment of the petitioners were cancelled with immediate effect as per the direction of the Vice Chancellor. The Registrar of the University gave an interview in the News paper in which the Registrar has stated that the appointment of the Assistant Directors in the Department of Adult Continuing and Extension Education in the University of Gorakhpur has been cancelled. It has been alleged that in view of the directions of the State Government dated 24-2-1992 the University is treating the services of the petitioners as terminated automatically. The writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents not to give effect to the direction of the State Government and also not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as Assistant Directors till the regular appointment is made. 2. At the admission stage the contesting respondents have put in appearance, the parties have exchanged, counter and rejoinder affidavits and the present writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the Court. A bare perusal of the appointment letter of the two petitioners dated 22 November, 91 contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition would show that the Vice Chancellor in exercise of his powers under section 13(6)(8) of the State Universities Act has appointed the two petitioners on ad-hoc basis for a period of six months. Counsel for the respondents at the very out set have urged before us that in view of the U.P. State Universities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, which was published in the U.P. Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 22 November, 1991, the appointment of the two petitioners could not be done by the Vice-Chancellor under section 13(6)(8) of the State Universities Act. 3. Counsel for the respondents at the very out set have urged before us that in view of the U.P. State Universities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1991, which was published in the U.P. Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 22 November, 1991, the appointment of the two petitioners could not be done by the Vice-Chancellor under section 13(6)(8) of the State Universities Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has, however, urged that the amendment is not applicable to the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners were not appointed as teachers of the University. Their appointment, according to the petitioners was, on the post of Assistant Director which could not be equated as an appointment of teacher of the University. 4. The U.P. State Universities (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 by clause (2) makes the following amendment in section 13 of the State Universities Act : "(a) In sub-section (6). After the words "where any matter" the words "other than the appointment of teacher of the University" shall be inserted. "(b) in sub-section (8) the words "or a teacher of the University" shall be omitted." It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid amendment that from 22 November, 1991 the Vice-Chancellor had no power to make appointments under section 13(6)(8) of the U.P. State Universities Act in so far as the teachers of the University were concerned. The next question which falls for determination is as to whether appointment of the petitioners on the past of Assistant Director can be called to be an appointment of the Teacher of the University. 5. Section 2(18) defines "teacher" meaning a person employed for imparting instruction or guiding or conducting research in the University or an Institute, or in a constituent, affiliated or associated Colleges and includes a Principal or a Director :" Section 2(19) of the State Universities Act defines "teacher of the University" meaning a teacher employed by the University for imparting Instruction and guiding or conducting research either in the University or In an institute or in a constituent college maintained by the University". The organisation and structure of the Department/Centre of Adult Education, Continuing Education and Extension, according to the University Grants Commission in an University will be like other teaching Department of the University. In fact, each University/College In the programme shall set up a Department/Centre of Adult Continuing Education and Extension at par with other statutory Departments of the University. The organisation and structure of the Department/Centre of Adult Education, Continuing Education and Extension, according to the University Grants Commission in an University will be like other teaching Department of the University. In fact, each University/College In the programme shall set up a Department/Centre of Adult Continuing Education and Extension at par with other statutory Departments of the University. The Department will have four staff i.e. Director, Assistant Directors and Project Officer who shall be recruited in the manner prescribed and this staff will be a non-vocational academic staff and shall be entitled to all the privileges and facilities except vacation and working hours which are available to the teachers in other Department of the University. 6. From the aforesaid it is clear that the Assistant Director is just like any other teacher employed by the University for imparting instructions as teacher and will include a Director also. We are of the opinion that the post of the Assistant Director will be covered by the definition of 'teacher of the University' as given in Section 2(19) of the U.P. State Universities Act. If that be so, on 22nd November, 1991 the power to appoint a teacher in the University under section 13(6) and (8) was not available to the Vice Chancellor and thus the petitioners could not ha e been appointed by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the aforesaid power The petitioners thus cannot get the relief asked for that the respondents may not interfere In their working as Assistant Directors on the basis of the appointment made by the Vice-chancellor under section 13(6)(8) of U.P. State Universities Act. However, before parting, we would like to observe that the two petitioners, if they have worked on the post of Assistant Director in pursuance of the appointment letter Issued by the Vice-Chancellor would be entitled to their salary for the period for which they have actually worked The University has taken work from these petitioners and thus the petitioners are entitled to receive salary for the period during which they have actually worked. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is finally disposed of. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.