Dr. Devendra Singh vs State and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Matter has come up on application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this Court dated 1st April, 2008, but with the consent of parties, the matter is heard at the stage of admission.

Petitioner, who was holding the post of System Manager & Head, Computer Science & Engineering Department in Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal, applied for the post of Principal, Engineering College, Bharatpur in pursuance of advertisement Ann.2 and after going through the selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Principal of Engineering College, Bharatpur vide order Ann.5 dated 27th October, 2005 on contract basis initially for a period of one year extendable to another two years on the condition of his work being found satisfactory at the end of initial tenure. However, Condition No. 6 was also stipulated in the order of his appointment that contractual appointment may be terminated at three months'' notice or pay in lieu thereof. In pursuance of order of appointment, petitioner joined service on 1st November, 2007 and vide order Ann.12 dated 12th March, 2008 the respondents while invoking Condition No. 6 of the order of his contractual appointment, terminated his services and three months'' notice pay in terms of Clause 6 was also sent to him with a separate letter which has been enclosed as Ann.13.

Counsel for petitioner submits that once he was appointed after going through the process of selection, may be on contract basis, his services could not have been dispensed with prior to the period of contract and that apart, however, terminating his services without affording opportunity of hearing vide order impugned is wholly arbitrary and is also in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgments of apex court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Shardindu, and so also in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another,

Respondents have filed their reply along with which justification has also been referred which is placed on record along with additional affidavit pointing out that Engineering College, Bharatpur has been established by the Engineering College Society, Bikaner and this is the first academic session of the College and the petitioner was appointed as Principal of the institution. It has been further averred that after he joined service, complaints were received one after another, of which reference has been made in detail in second additional affidavit filed by the respondents and looking thereto, a preliminary inquiry was also conducted and that too submitted his report on 10th March, 2008 in which reference has been made of alleged complaints Ann.RA/15. Taking note of report and other material which were placed before the concerned competent authority who also finally examined at Note Nos.56 & 57 placed for perusal and finally took decision to dispense with his services by making payment of three months'' salary as referred to in Condition No. 6 and in view of final recommendations made the petitioner''s services were dispensed with vide order Ann.12 dated 12th March, 2008. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was appointed on purely contractual basis and there was a condition stipulated that services can be terminated by three months'' notice and and after taking note of complete material which came on record since calling upon the petitioner and holding inquiry certainly may impute some allegation, avoiding that situation the concerned competent authority considered appropriate by invoking Clause 6 of the order of appointment to dispense with his services.

It has also been informed to this Court that petitioner joined substantive post after passing of order dt.12/3/08 in his parent institution being Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science & Technology, Murthal on 14th March, 2008. Condition No. 6 of letter of appointment, which is relevant for the purpose, is reproduced as under:

This contractual appointment may be terminated at three month notice or pay in lieu thereof.

It is true that under the terms of contract of employment, the employer has reserved its right to terminate the contract while giving three months'' notice or salary in lieu thereof. The condition referred to supra does not disclose the reasons for which the same can be invoked by the employer terminating the term of contract. But, at the same time, it is always to be exercised judiciously not in an arbitrary and capricious manner, particularly, when the matter comes to the court for judicial review the material can be examined as to whether there was any justification available for the respondents to terminate the contract of employment prior thereto. This Court has gone through the necessary material which has been placed on record along with a specific Note at Nos.56 & 57 of the competent authority and finds substance in the submission of counsel for respondents which empowered them to invoke Clause 6 of the Condition taking decision to terminate the contract vide order impugned Ann.12 dated 12th March, 2008.

Submission made by counsel for petitioner questioning the Condition No. 6 of the terms of contract of employment and so also the action being violative of principles of natural justice in the facts of instant case is of no substance for the reason that he has accepted the terms & conditions of contract which has been offered to him - pursuant to which, he has joined service and once Clause 6 being part of contract of employment the same can certainly be invoked if sufficient material comes on record. This Court finds no infirmity for invoking Clause 6 of the condition of contract.

So far as principles of natural justice is concerned, it has to be examined in the facts of each case since the order terminating service is in terms of contract of employment which does not impute allegation and is not stigmatic in absence whereof, natural justice in the facts of instant case has no application.

As regards judgments [supra] on which counsel for petitioner placed reliance are of no assistance in the facts of instant case.

Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court also stands vacated.