Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1998 (PNJ)

Inderbir Singh v. Dav College Managing Committee

2007-11-16

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment 1. This petition seeks a direction for quashing order dated 7.2.2004 Annexure P. 9 passed by the Principal DAV Institute of Physiotherapy and R habilitation, Jalandhar City, Jalandhar, respondent No. 2. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was recruited as Lecturer in Physiotherapy vide appointment letter dated 10.11.1998, Annexure P. 2. After completion of probation period, his services were confirmed. He remained treating various types of physiotherapy patients. On 14.6.2002, the petitioner was informed that his name was not approved for the post of Lecturer by the Baba Farid University, Faridkot and, thereafter, his services were terminated on 7.2.2004 by giving him cheque for Rs. 32113/- towards three months salary. 3. Contention raised is that the petitioner having been appointed and having been found to be qualified for the appointment as he had the degree of Masters in Physiotherapy, his services could not be terminated after six years without affording any opportunity and without any misconduct. 4. In the decision of the University referred to in letter date 14.6.2002, Annexure P.8, it has been stated that the qualification required for the post of Lecturer was MPT/MSPT with basic degree of B.PhT. 5. In the reply filed by the University, it has been stated that the etitioner was only Graduate in Ayurveda. 6. In the reply filed by the College, it has been stated that the petiioner had the degree of Masters in Sports Physiotherapy, which was different from Bachelor in Physiotherapy. The appointment of the petitioner having not bee approved as Lecturer, the College had no option but to terminate his services. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been given any hearing before passing the order of termination. The petitioner was allowed to serve for six years and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner made any misrepresentation and in such a situation, it will be unfair to simply disapprove his appointment without giving him an opportunity. 9. For the above reason itself, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is quashed. 10. 9. For the above reason itself, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is quashed. 10. The petitioner has not placed on record the degree which he possesses and in absence of adequate material, we are unable to record a finding on the question of fact whether the petitioner had the requisite qualification as per advertisement Annexure P. 1. We make it clear that the respondents will be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving hearing to the petitioner. 11. As regards the question of back wages for the period from the date of termination till the petitioner is allowed to join back, we find that no averment has made in the petition that the petitioner was not employed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made a statement that the petitioner will not claim monetary benefits or back wages. Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner will not be entitled to monetary benefits. 12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.