Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 323 (JHR)

Tikam Ram v. Ranchi University

2001-05-10

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner originally prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. RU/3161, dated 18.1.2000 whereby the services of the petitioner as Estate Officer has been terminated with effect from 22.2.2000. By an amendment in the writ application the petitioner has further challenged the office order dated 16.2.2000 whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Estate Officer was declared as fake and further the petitioner was reverted to his previous post of Laboratory Technician in the Post Graduate Department of Psychology. 2. Petitioners case is that he was initially appointed as Lab. incharge in Marwari College. Ranchi in the year 1978. The said College was made constituent in or about the year 1980-81. The petitioner was then transferred and posted in the P.G. Department of Psychology. It is alleged that by Memo No. 1732, dated 9th October, 1982 the Education Department of the State Government approved the creation of one post of an Estate Officer at the Office of Ranchi University. After creation of the post of Estate Officer, the same was filled up by promotion. However, in 1991 the Ranchi University invited applications through advertisement for appointment to the post of Estate Officer from non-teaching employees of the Ranchi University. The Selection Committee so constituted for this purpose forwarded the names of three candidates who were found suitable for being appointed on the post of Estate Officer. The name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 1 of the said recommendation. Ultimately by a notification dated 14.3.1991 the petitioner was appointed as an Estate Officer of the Ranchi University in the revised pay scale of Rs. 2,000--3,800 and the petitioner joined the post on 16.3.1999. Subsequently, in the gradation list issued by the University vide notification dated 15.4.1999 the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 186 showing his appointment as Estate Officer. 3. Petitioners further case is that the State Government further sanctioned the post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer vide Memo dated 17.1.1983. The State Government while giving sanction to the proposal of creation of the said post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer imposed a condition that no financial liability shall be incurred till the actual financial sanction is communicated and approved by the Finance Department. Petitioners further case is that the State Government further sanctioned the post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer vide Memo dated 17.1.1983. The State Government while giving sanction to the proposal of creation of the said post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer imposed a condition that no financial liability shall be incurred till the actual financial sanction is communicated and approved by the Finance Department. In 1995 the Vice-Chancellor of the University, vide Memo dated 25th July, 1995 issued an order to the effect that the duties and works which were allotted to Sri Baijnath Seth, Caretaker-cum- Estate Officer, shall be allotted to the petitioner and the work of the petitioner will be looked after by aforesaid Baijnath Seth. However, the petitioner was served with an office order dated 18.1.2000 by the Ranchi University informing the petitioner that pursuant to the direction of the State Government dated 25th December, 1999 the Vice-Chancellor has terminated the services of the post of Estate Officer with effect from 22.2.2000. By the said order the petitioner was also given liberty to file representation if he has any grievance against the said order. The petitioner then filed a representation which was considered by the University and the same was rejected. By the said order the petitioner was reverted to his substantive post of lab-technician. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents-Ranchi University. The respondents case is that the case of the petitioner and other 57 employees of the University has been the subject-matter of consideration of the State of Bihar regarding the validity of their appointment. The State Government by letter dated 28.12.1999 directed the University to take action against those persons who were appointed/promoted against non-existing posts and further to cancel such appointment and promotion. When no action was taken by the University, the State Government again asked the University to show-cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against the officers of the University and why recommendations be not sent to the Chancellor for realisation of the amount paid to the said persons. It is further stated that the State Government has been repeatedly intimating to the Ranchi University while sanctioning grants that the appointment/ promotion in respect of 57 persons would be immediately cancelled. Respondents further case is that the petitioner was appointed as Estate Officer on the strength of the State Governments letter No. 67, dated 17.1.1983. It is further stated that the State Government has been repeatedly intimating to the Ranchi University while sanctioning grants that the appointment/ promotion in respect of 57 persons would be immediately cancelled. Respondents further case is that the petitioner was appointed as Estate Officer on the strength of the State Governments letter No. 67, dated 17.1.1983. The existence of such letter No. 67 dated 17.1.1983 has been denied and disputed by the State Government and the same has been declared to be fake document. It is contended that in the light of the direction of the State Government, the services of the petitioner to the post of Estate Officer has been terminated as the appointment was void ab initio. The representation filed by the petitioner against the termination of the service as Estate Officer was considered by the University and it was found that the petitioner was appointed against a post which was declared fake and the same was never sanctioned by the State Government. The respondents-University has, therefore, no option but to revert the petitioner to his previous post of lab-technician in the P.G. Department of Psychology. Ranchi University. 5. I have heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the University and Mr. R.K. Merathia, learned counsel for the State. 6. The only point which arises for consideration is as to whether the letter forming part of Annexure 8, whereby it is alleged that the post of Caretaker- cum-Estate Officer was sanctioned by the Government, is a fake document. Petitioners case is that the post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer was sanctioned by the order of the State Government as contained in Memo No. 1104/80, dated 17.1.1983. The State Government while giving sanction to the proposal of creation of the said post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer, imposed a condition that no financial liability shall be incurred till the actual sanction is communicated and approval is given by the Finance Department. A copy of the said letter dated 17.1.1983 has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the writ application. On the basis of this letter work of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer was allotted to the petitioner by notification dated 25th July, 1995 who was the n posted as Estate Officer. Respondents case is that such letter was never issued by the State Government sanctioning the post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer. On the basis of this letter work of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer was allotted to the petitioner by notification dated 25th July, 1995 who was the n posted as Estate Officer. Respondents case is that such letter was never issued by the State Government sanctioning the post of Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer. However, in 1991 the petitioner was appointed as Estate Officer by virtue of notification dated 14.3.1991. The said appointment was made on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, who conducted interview of the candidates who had applied for the said post. It further appears that the State Government time to time questioned the validity of the appointment of 57 persons including the petitioner on the non-existing posts, on the ground. inter alia, that those posts were never sanctioned by the State Government. On the basis of the direction of the State Government, the services of the petitioner as Estate Officer was terminated vide office order dated 18.1.2000. A copy of the termination order dated 18.1.2000 has been annexed as Annexure II which reads as under :-- "RANCHI UNIVERSITY, RANCHI MEMO NO, RU/3161 DATE : 18.1.2000 To. Sri Tikam Ram Caretaker-cum-Estate Officer, Ranchi University, Ranchi In pursuance of the State Government Letter No. 15/M/138/98-2255, dated 28.12.1999, the Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to terminate your service from the post of Estate Officer with effect from 22.2.2000 as per provision contained under Article 9(5), Chapter I of the Ranchi University Statute. In case of any grievance you are directed to represent your case by 31.1.2000. By Order of the Vice-Chancellor Sd/- (P.P. Verma) Registrar. Ranchi University, Ranchi." 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order filed his representation. The representation was considered by the respondents-University and the same was rejected holding that his appointment on the post of Estate Officer was made on the basis of fake document as the said post was not sanctioned by the State Government. The petitioner was, therefore, reverted back to his previous post of laboratory technician. 8. Admittedly the order of termination of the services of the petitioner as an Estate Officer was Issued by the University without giving the petitioner any notice to show-cause. However, in the termination notice liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation, if he is aggrieved by the said order. The petitioner, accordingly, filed representation. 8. Admittedly the order of termination of the services of the petitioner as an Estate Officer was Issued by the University without giving the petitioner any notice to show-cause. However, in the termination notice liberty was given to the petitioner to file representation, if he is aggrieved by the said order. The petitioner, accordingly, filed representation. While rejecting the representation, the respondents by the impugned letter dated 16.2.2000, not only declared - the appointment of the petitioner as fake but also reverted him to his previous post of lab-technician. Except filing of representation, no other opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuance of the said letter. When the respondents-University appointed the petitioner as Caretaker- cum-Estate Officer in the year 1983 and further in 1991, on the basis of the Government Letter, dated 17.1.1983 (Annexure 8), then before declaring the said letter as fake, opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was called upon by the University to substantiate his claim of valid appointment and also to show that Annexure 8 is not a fake document. In that view of the matter. I am of the opinion that the impugned letter dated 16.2.2000 whereby the petitioner was reverted back to his previous post of lab-technician cannot be sustained in law. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed in part. The impugned office order as contained in the letter dated 16.2.2000 (Annexure 17) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents-University with a direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 10. Application partly allowed.