Atik Ahmad vs Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology and Others

R. Dayal, J.—By this writ petition, Petitioner, Atik Ahmad, has sought a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.9.1995 passed by Respondent No. 1 and also a direction commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the Petitioner as artist-cum-photographer and to pay him his regular monthly salary for the said post.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

As per the averments made in the writ petition, the Petitioner was granted appointment on daily-wages for imparting instruction of study in Fine Arts and Craft vide order dated 25.8.1987 of Director of Administration and Monitoring, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology. He continued in that capacity till 13.12.1992 without any break. By an order dated 13.12.1992, Annexure 3 to the writ petition, he was appointed on that post under Chapter XIII (10)(a)(b) of the Statutes of the University. The order clearly provides that the services of the Petitioner would be terminable at any time without issuing any show cause notice.

The Petitioner was served with a notice dated 16.7.1994 (Annexure No. 9) issued from the office of Chancellor of the University forwarding therewith a copy of a representation filed by one Rakesh Kumar. The Petitioner submitted a reply to that notice which is Annexure No. 10. Vide order dated 29.9.1995, Annexure 11, the appointment of the Petitioner was annulled by the Chancellor on the ground that the appointment had been made contrary to Chapter XII, Para (3) of the Statutes, which provides that no selection for any appointment under the Statutes shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three newspapers having adequate circulation in the country. Admittedly, no advertisement had been issued in respect of the appointment which was annulled subsequently by the Chancellor vide Annexure 11.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid para applies only to appointment of staff and since by Annexure 3, the Petitioner was not initially appointed, as he had already been working on daily wages, this was a case of regularisation. Further, it is submitted that since there is no prohibition in the Statutes for regularisation of services, the order dated 13.12.1992 is valid.

On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that a perusal of the order dated 13.12.1992 clearly shows that this was a case of appointment and since there is no provision under the rules for regularisation, this could not be a case other than of appointment. It is further submitted that if the contention of the Petitioner is upheld, the provisions of Chapter XIII. Para (3) of the Statutes would be rendered nugatory.

Statute 1 (a) in Chapter XIII provides that all appointments should be made strictly on the basis of merit. Statute 3, as stated earlier, provides that no selection for appointment shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three newspapers having adequate circulation in the country. The Statute Is Intended to serve twofold purpose; one to give an opportunity to everyone eligible to be considered for selection and the other to select best available persons to fill up the vacancies. In view of this provision, appointments could only be made by direct recruitment by inviting applications and not by regularisation. Dealing with a similar provision In Section 31 of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973, the Supreme Court in Dr Bal Krishna Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others, observed as under:

Section 31 of the Act provides for appointment of teachers. In Sub-section (10) of Section 31 it is prescribed that no selection for any appointment shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh. In view of the said provision appointment of teachers in the University could only be made by direct recruitment by inviting applications and promotion from a lower teaching post to a higher teaching post was not envisaged.

Further, Annexure 3 also did not say that the appointment was made to regularise the services on dally wages. Besides In Dr. Sudhir Chandra v. Chancellor reported in 1983 UPLBEC 110, an advertisement had been issued for filling up two posts of Reader, one permanent and the other temporary. By the time selection was made, a permanent vacancy arose and the Petitioner was appointed as permanent Reader. This Court held that where advertisement was for a specific nature of post, appointment could not be made to fill up the post of different nature and as such the appointment was invalid, being contrary to the advertisement.

One other submission made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the services of many other employees of the University have been regularised. This submission has also no merit. If some Illegalities had been committed, they did not justify perpetuation of similar illegalities in future.

Thus the impugned order dated 29.9.1995 only set right the patent illegality which had been committed by the order dated 13.12.1992, Annexure 3.

The writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.