Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 880 (HP)

Sneh Lata Pathak v. State of H. P.

2015-07-14

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral) The writ petitioner was serving with the respondent No.4-College in the capacity of Lecturer in Economics. During the course of her employment with the respondent No.4, the petitioner herein endorsed a communication, comprised in Annexure A-I, to the management of respondent No.4-college conveying her request for hers being permitted to, in consonance with the provisions contained in the H.P. University Ordinances Hand Book Page 184 rule 53, proceed on long leave from 10th March, 2000 onwards. However, no action, on the communication forwarded by the petitioner to respondent No.4-college, was taken by the latter. The petitioner continued to make representations to the management of respondent No.4-college qua sanction of leave, as sought for, in her favour. It appears on a reading of Annexure A-II that the management of respondent No.4-college accorded sanction of leave upto 16 months in favour of the petitioner. However, her request to the Management of respondent No.4- college, for further extension of leave beyond 16 months stood, as borne out from a perusal of Annexure A-II, rejected by it under communication bearing No.05/AGCN DT.12.4.2002. The management of respondent No.-4-college wherein the petitioner was serving having not accorded to her the desired extension of leave beyond 16 months, constrained the petitioner to, under Annexure A-II, make a further representation to it for grant of further extension of leave beyond 16 months. The petitioner sought extension of leave beyond a period of 16 months as stood sanctioned in her favour, on the anvil of rule 53(b) ordinances XXXVIII, page 185 of H.P. University Hand Book. The representation of the petitioner addressed to the Management of respondent No.4-college was forwarded in original by the latter to the Deputy Registrar (Academic), H.P. University, Shimla. The Deputy Registrar (Academic), H.P. University, Shimla while being seized of the representation of the petitioner forwarded to him in original by respondent No.4-college, communicated to the Management of respondent No.4-College under Annexure A-IV, that the representation of the petitioner for extension of leave beyond 16 months, be examined in the light of Rule 53(b) of the Appendix ‘A” to Chapter-XXXVIII, paragraph 38.5.B(d) of First Ordinances of H.P. University (as amended). In the meantime, the respondent No.4-college was, under Annexure A-V, taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. In the meantime, the respondent No.4-college was, under Annexure A-V, taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, the Management of respondent No.-4 communicated to the petitioner under Annexure–VI, that her representation would be dealt with by the Directorate of Education. Moreover, after the taking over of the respondent No.-4-college by H.P. Government under Annexure A-V, the respondent No.6 was absorbed as a lecturer on regular basis in the respondent No.4-college. Besides, there exists a portrayal in Annexure R-4/E of the claim of the petitioner for grant of leave beyond 16 months necessitating rejection besides there is a revelation therein of the petitioner having been directed to join her duties immediately after expiry of the period of leave sanctioned in her favour, in absence whereof, it was conveyed therein to her that her name will be removed from the roll of the institution. However, the petitioner omitted to join duties as mandated by Annexure R-4/E, in sequel, as imminent on a reading of Annexure R-4/F her services stood terminated. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the factum of her services having come to be terminated under Annexure R-4/F even when the respondents had not proceeded to hold any inquiry. Consequently, the petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure R-4/F besides, a relief is claimed that the absorption of respondent No.6 in respondent No.4-college is untenable as the petitioner had a superior right over respondent No.6 for absorption in the respondent No.4-college on its taking over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The argument as meted out by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein for rendering unvindicable the act of respondent No.4 in dispensing or terminating with the service of the petitioner even without holding any inquiry would stand to gain succor and sinew with this Court only in the event of there being abundant material on record manifesting the fact that the petitioner had not willfully abandoned her job under respondent No.4-college or material pronouncing upon the fact that her contract of service with the respondent No4- College hence stood not revoked or rescinded. However, as evident from a reading of Annexure R-4/C which is a communication addressed by the petitioner to the Principal, Arya College, Nurpur bespeaking the fact that she stood selected as a lecturer in Economics on a regular basis in DAV College, Kotkhai and had in that capacity joined her duties on 10.03.2000. However, as evident from a reading of Annexure R-4/C which is a communication addressed by the petitioner to the Principal, Arya College, Nurpur bespeaking the fact that she stood selected as a lecturer in Economics on a regular basis in DAV College, Kotkhai and had in that capacity joined her duties on 10.03.2000. Consequently, when Annexure R4/C stands communicated to respondent No.-4-college on 27th April, 2000, whereas, Annexure R-4/F whereunder her services stood terminated was issued subsequently on 23.07.2001. Therefore, when the termination of the services of the petitioner by respondent No.4 only occurred subsequent to the forwarding of a communication by the petitioner to the respondent No.4, manifesting the fact of hers having joined as a lecturer on regular basis in DAV College, Kotkhai, obviously, then with the petitioner having omitted to not accede to the request made by the respondent No.4-College to join her duties therein in the face of hers being not entitled to the leave as claimed by her, naturally rendered the contract of service entered into by the petitioner with the respondent No.4-College, to suffer revocation and rescission. In other words, with the petitioner having joined services as a lecturer in economics on a regular basis with the DAV College, Kotkhai, her joining there in that capacity prior to the issuance of Annexure R-4/F, constituted then the factum of hers having entered into a fresh contract of service with the Management of DAV College, Kotkhai. The implication thereof was that she hence rescinded the earlier contract of service with the respondent No.4-College. As a natural concomitant, the deduction is that the respondent No.4-college was not hence under any obligation to, when she was no longer in service with it constituted by the factum of the contract of service of the petitioner with it having, for the reason aforesaid, suffered rescission, proceed to hold any inquiry before terminating or dispensing with the services of the petitioner. In aftermath, it is apparent that with the volitional abandonment of job by the petitioner under the respondent No.4-college, the latter was disobliged to hold any inquiry before dispensing with or terminating the services of the petitioner. In aftermath, it is apparent that with the volitional abandonment of job by the petitioner under the respondent No.4-college, the latter was disobliged to hold any inquiry before dispensing with or terminating the services of the petitioner. As a concomitant then when the petitioner had no surviving contract of service with respondent No.4-college, she is interdicted to agitate or canvass or claim any right of hers being entitled to be absorbed as a regular lecturer with the respondent No.4-college on the latter having been taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Besides, she also cannot with any fervour contend that the absorption of respondent No.6 as a lecturer in the respondent No.4-College after its taking over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh is lacking in any legal vigour. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.