R.S. Sachdeva vs H.P. University and Others

H.S. Thakur, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the order of Respondents 1 and 2 whereby he was refused to be absorbed as Headclerk in the Himachal Pradesh University, and especially the order contained in Annexure ''G''. The Petitioner has also prayed that Respondents 1 and 2 be ordered to take the Petitioner as a Headclerk in the University from 31-10-1973. He has also prayed for all the benefits of promotion etc. to which he may be entitled, on the basis of his absorption in the University with effect from 31-10-1973, and that the promotions made without considering him be quashed. The relevant facts as disclosed in the writ petition may be stated.

The Petitioner was confirmed as a Headclerk on 1-7-1962 by the Agricultural Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government. It is stated that on 22-7-1970 the Himachal Pradesh University Bill, 1970, was publishedin the Official Gazette and the same received the assent of the President of India, on 30-7-19 70. Consequently, the Himachal Pradesh University (hereinafter referred to as the University) came into being. In pursuance of the said Act, the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, issued a memorandum to the Petitioner informing him that his services would become surplus and will stand terminated with effect from the date of the expiry of the period of three months from the date on which the notice is served upon him. It is further stated that the Petitioner was also informed that he was offered a comparable post carrying the same designation, pay scale and status presently held by him, in the University. The assent of the Petitioner was asked for. The Petitioner states that he accepted the offer of employment under the University as contained in Annexure ''C''. The Petitioner has further stated that he immediately on 31-10-1973 reported for duty before the Vice-Chancellor of the University and submitted an application for joining the duty. The Respondent No. 1, however, refused to accept the Petitioner, and did not allow him to join the duties as Headclerk. The University informed the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, that they were not prepared to accept the Petitioner in their service as they wanted the vacant posts from the Agricultural Department. The Petitioner has further stated that after he was relieved from the office of the Director of Agriculture and had presented himself before the University and submitted his joining report, he became an employee of the University. It is further stated that on the basis of his being an employee of the University with effect from 31-10-1973, the University had no power not to allow him to join the service. On this account, it is contended by the Petitioner that he has legally become an employee of the University and is entitled to all the consequential benefits. On this basis it is also contended by the Petitioner that for all intents and purposes the order of the University not allowing him to join the service amounted to the termination of his service. Annexure ''G'' to the writ petition, which is prayed to be quashed by the Petitioner, is a letter from the University to the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, dated 31-10-1973. It is desirable to reproduce this letter and is reproduced as under:

With reference to your Memoranda Nos. 1-48/71-Agr., dated the 26th October 1973, on the above subject. I am directed to say that there was a definite understanding between the H.P. University and the Department of Agriculture represented by the Secretary Agriculture, Government of Himachal Pradesh, and Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, that out of six posts transferred to the University, three will be vacant. This position was explained to you vide thus University letter of even No. dated the 26th October, 1973, and a copy thereof was also endorsed to the Deputy Secretary (Agr.), Government of Himachal Pradesh, Simla. Since three Headclerks have already joined the University, the fourth person namely, Shri R.S. Sachdeva, who has been relieved by you and directed to join this University, is not acceptable to us. Accordingly, he has been directed to report back to the Agriculture Department.

In view of the position stated above, instructions to S/Shri K.R. Jistu and Daya Singh may kindly be issued urgently so that they are not relieved by their immediate officers to join this University.

In the return filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, inter alia, it has been submitted that the University had agreed to take only three Headclerks against six such posts. It is further submitted that since three Headclerks had already joined the University, it could not take any more. The University had asked the Director of Agriculture not to transfer the Petitioner to the University and that the University had never agreed to take the Petitioner as its employee. A copy of the letter Annexure R.A., has been filed with the return. It is convenient to reproduce the said letter to consider the case of the Petitioner. The letter reads as under:

Copy of letter No. 10-71/73-HPU (Estt.), dated the 26th October, 1973, from Shri G.L. Sharma, Registrar, H.P. University to the Deputy Secretary (Agr.) to the Govt. of H.P., Simla and copy endorsed with enclosures to the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Nalagarh House, Simla, with reference to his letter No. 1-48/71-Agr. I, Vol. IV, dated the 20th October, 1973.

Subject.-Allocation of Head Clerks from the Agriculture Department of Him chal Pradesh to the Himachal Pradesh University.

I am to refer to your letter No. 16-81/70-Agr., (Sectt.), dated the 17th October, 1973, on the above subject, and to forward herewith an extract of the decision of the Executive Council of this University arrived at in its meeting held on the 29th September, 1973, regarding allocation of three Head Clerks from the Department of Agriculture of the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh to the Himachal Pradesh University.

Since three Head Clerks of the Agriculture Department have already been accepted by this University in pursuance of the decision arrived at in the meeting held between the Agriculture Production Commissioner and the Vice-Chancellor, it is requested that no further allocation of the Head Clerks to this University be made. Accordingly, no more Head Clerks from the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Himachal Pradesh will be allowed to join this University. Your letter No. 16-81/70-Agr. (Sectt.), dated the 17th October, 1973 is not in conformity with the discussions held between the Agriculture Production Commissioner and the Vice-Chancellor and the final decision arrived at on the said issue.

Enclosure:

Extract of item No. 32 of the Executive Council''s meeting held on the 29th September, 1973.

The Vice-Chancellor apprised the members of his discussion with the Agricultural Production Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. The Government is giving six positions, three filled and three vacant. If the offer is not accepted, the University will have to forfeit all the six posts and the salary attached to these posts.

In view of the position as such, the Executive Council directed that this offer be accepted.

Copy of letter No. 10-71 /73-HPU (Estt.), dated the 26th October, 1973, from Shri G.L. Sharma, Registrar, H.P. University to the Director of Agriculture, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Simla.

Subject.-Allocation of Head Clerks from the Agriculture Department of Him chal Pradesh to the Himachal Pradesh University.

I am to refer to your endorsement made on Memorandum No. 1-48/71-Agri. I Vol. IV, dated the 23rd October, 1973, addressed to Shri Daya Singh Gularia, Head Clerk, Indo-German Agricultural Project, Palampur, copies endorsed to this University and the Secretary (Agr.) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, on the above subject, and to say that as already intimated vide this University''s letter of even No., dated the 26th October, 1973, addressed to the Deputy Secretary (Agr.), Government of Himachal Pradesh with a copy to you, that on the basis of the decision arrived at, only three Head Clerks of the Department of Agriculture who were allocated to the University earlier and have joined are to be accepted by us. Accordingly, further allocation of Shri Daya Singh Gularia who will be the fourth official and who has been advised to report for duty in this University vide your Memorandum referred to above, is not in conformity with the decision arrived at in the meeting held between the Agriculture Production Commissioner and the Vice-Chancellor and also the decision of the Executive Council of this University which was taken on the basis of the said meeting of the Agriculture Production Commissioner and the V.C.

Since as already intimated vide para 2 of this University''s letter of even No., dated the 26th October, 1973, that no more allocations of the Head Clerks will be accepted by this University, and the Head Clerks if relieved, will not be allowed to join the University. I am, therefore, to request you that orders of allocation of Shri Daya Singh Gularia, Head Clerk, conveyed to this University vide your Memorandum under reference may be cancelled forthwith. The Project Officer, Indo-German Agricultural Project, Palampur, may kindly be advised telegraphically not to relieve the concerned official under intimation to this University.

Receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged.

Copy forwared to:

The Deputy Secretary (Agr.) to the Govt. of H.P. Simla, with reference to this University''s letter of even No., dated the 26th October, 1973. The allocation of Shri Daya Singh Gularia, Head Clerk of the Deptt. of Agriculture, Govt. of H.P., has further been made by the Director of Agr., Govt. of H.P., in addition to the three Head Clerks who have already joined the University. Suitable instructions may kindly be issued to the Director of Agr., Govt. of H.P., Simla, that only three posts of Head Clerks are to be allocated to the University and three remaining posts as per the decision arrived at, are to be sent as vacant. The position was duly explained in our letter of even No., dated the 26th October, 1973.

The Projet Officer, Indo-German Agr. Project, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., by registered post. This has a reference to Director of Agr., Govt. of H.P. Memorandum referred to above a copy of which was also endorsed to him. In view of the position explained above, Shri Daya Singh Gularia, Head Clerk working under him, may not be relieved of his duties.

The return has also been filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The substance of the said return is that it was decided later on, not to allocate more then three Head Clerks to the University who had already joined. It is further stated that the notice of termination of the services of the Petitioner-cum-offer comparable post in the University was being cancelled. It is also stated that since Respondent No. 2 showed its inability to accept the Petitioner and informed the Department of Agriculture about it, the Government was prepared to take him back to his parent department. A copy of the order is also filed with the return as Annexure RA. It is also desirable to reproduce the same. It reads as under:

MEMORANDUM.

Reference your endst. No. RSS-2-4, dated the 1st Nov., 1973, on the above noted subject.

You are hereby instructed to report for duty to the Deputy Director of Agriculture (Marketing), H.P., Simla, till the final decision in the case is conveyed by the H.P. Govt.

There is also a copy of the letter dated 6-11-1973 from the Deputy Director to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh, which is annexed to the return. The same is also reproduced for a ready reference which reads as under:

Subject.-Allocation of Head Clerks from the Department of Agriculture to H.P. University.

Sir,

With reference to the notices served by you upon S/Shri R.S. Sachdeva, Daya Sirgh Guleria, and K.R. Jistu, I am directed to invite your attention to this office letter of even number, dated the 17th October, 1973, in which the University was informed that only 3 Head Clerks viz., S/Shri Jagdish Chand, M.L. Sharma and D.C. Chandel will be allocated to the University and the remaining three posts will be sent as vacant. In view of this clear-cut position it is not understood why the notices were served on the Senior Head Clerks without any regard to their seniority in the combined cadre of the Head Clerks in contravention of the orders issued from this office. I am, therefore, to request that the notices on all the three head clerks be cancelled forthwith and instead the junior-most three head clerks reverted immediately if not already done.

I am also to point out that a criminal case is already pending against Shri K.R. Jistu, in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Simla. In view of this case his allocation to the University is not a prudent step at this stage.

The receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that once the Petitioner was offered a comparable post in the University, by the Government, it has to be presumed that the University had assented to this arrangement. The Petitioner having accepted the offer and having been relieved by the Director of Agriculture from his office and directed to join his duties in the University, and the Petitioner actually having submitted his joining report in the University, he legally became an employee of the University. The Petitioner has referred to Statute 38 of the First Statutes of the University and has contended that he being the employee of the Agricultural Complex in terms of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970, he automatically became the employee of the University. It has been pointed out on behalf of the Respondents that Statute 38 of the First Statutes has been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chander etc. v. State of H.P. etc. (I.L.R. 1978 H.P. 18). On this account it is contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner cannot take the benefit of Statute 38 of the First Statutes. It is further contended that otherwise also the Petitioner being not the employee of any of the institutions as indicated in Statute 38, cannot be an employee of the University automatically. It is also contended by the learned Advocate General that the order allocating tie Petitioner to the University has already been cancelled by the Government after considering the position taken by the University. It is also stated by the learned Advocate-General that the Petitioner has been taken back in service and he is working in the Agriculture Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since the Petitioner has suppressed this material fact, it is contended on behalf of the Respondents, that on this account also no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.

Shri Nag who has appeared for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, has contended that since the joining report of the Petitioner was not accepted by the University and the Respondents 3 and 4 having withdrawn the order of allocation to the University, the Petitioner has no right to claim himself as an employee of the University. Otherwise also, it is contended by Shri Nag that the University had every right not to accept the Petitioner as its employee.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the relevant record. The only question which survives for determination in the face of the facts as disclosed above, is whether Respondents 3 and 4 were competent to cancel the order of the allocation of the Petitioner to the University and whether the University was liable to accept the Petitioner as its employee. The relevant documents in this behalf have been reproduced earlier above. It is contended by the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that no doubt the Petitioner was asked to join the University as its employee, but on the objection of the University and the decision taken, the Government cancelled the order of allocation of the Petitioner to the University and accepted him as their employee. At the most, the Respondents 3 and 4 can be deemed to have reviewed their earlier order of allocation of the Petitioner to the University. A further question that arises is whether the Respondents 3 and 4 could review such an administrative order? Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of R.R. Verma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, while dealing with this position observed as under:

We do not think that the principle that the power to review must be conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication is applicable to decisions purely of an administrative nature. To extend the principle to pure administrative decisions would indeed lead to untoward and startling results. Surely, any Government must be free to alter its policy or its decision in administrative matters. If they are to carry on their daily administration they cannot be hidebound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure though of course they are bound to obey all statutory requirements and also observe the principles of natural justice where rights of parties may be affected. Here again, we emphasise that if administrative decisions are reviewed, the decisions taken after review are subject to judicial review on all grounds on which an administrative decision may be questioned in a Court. We see no force in this submission of the learned Counsel. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Following the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that Respondents 3 and 4 were fully competent to review the order and maintain the status quo of the Petitioner in their department. As pointed out earlier above, the Petitioner is continuing in the service of the Government and no prejudice appears to have been caused to him. On this account also, there has been no violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play. In the exercise of its powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a High Court would not ordinarily interfere with any order if no injustice has been done to a Petitioner. In this case the Petitioner continues to be an employee of the Government and since the order of his allocation to the University has been cancelled, he is entitled to all the benefits as a Government servant.

For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.