Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Jagdish Rami Son Of Shri Prithvi Raj vs Union Of India And Others on 16 February, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011
Date of Decision.16.02.2012
Dr. Jagdish Rami son of Shri Prithvi Raj .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. By a cryptic order dated 11.05.2011, the Central University of Punjab, which had issued to the petitioner a letter of appointment informed that his joining report was not accepted by the competent authority. It is this order issued on 11.05.2011 that is in challenge.
2. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the Centre for Bio-Sciences and he had been issued with letter of appointment by the University by its letter dated 26.04.2011. He was required to submit his joining report in the office on or before 11.05.2011 and according to the petitioner, when at the time of joining on 09.05.2011, he was required to hand over at the office all original certificates and when he demanded a receipt for the handing over of the originals from the staff member of the University, who was receiving his C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -2- papers, the staff by name Poonam Rani issued an informal receipt on the photocopy of the joining report without even a stamp of the competent authority. The petitioner would state that he was medically examined at the same date at the Health Centre and he had actually joined the University and gave a lecture on 10.05.2011 to the students of M.Phil Course. He again met with the Assistant Registrar, who is arrayed as the 3rd respondent to issue a due receipt for the original certificates on 10.05.2011. But on the next day namely on 11.05.2011, the petitioner was rebuked by the 3rd respondent for seeking a receipt of the original certificates but he returned the original certificates to the petitioner and on the same day, he was also given the impugned letter.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of letter and to issue a mandamus directing the respondents not to fill up the post of the petitioner till the completion of the dispute. The petitioner's case is contested by the University on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed several important facts and there is no scope for mandamus to be issued in a situation where the petitioner had merely a temporary post initially for a period of one year and that during the period, the contract could be terminated at any time without prior notice and without assigning any reason. Under the terms of the employment issued to the petitioner at the time of making the offer on 26.04.2011, it was specifically stated that the appointment could not establish any right or claim for regularization/absorption against any vacant post in the University. The petitioner would try to explain the circumstances when the letter of rejection of the joining report was made by making a disclosure of certain events that had taken place at the time when he reported for C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -3- joining the duty. At the time when he handed over the certificates, the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with the dealing official Ms. Poonam Rani as well as with the Special Officer, Professor R.K. Deora, who was entrusted with the task of making a quick assessment of fracas at the time when the petitioner reported for joining. According to respondents, Ms. Poonam Rani issued a receipt to the petitioner for the certificates submitted by him, whereupon the petitioner insisted for a receipt to be signed and stamped by permanent employee since Poonam Rani herself was a contractual employee and therefore, the receipt issued by her was worthless. At that time she was reported to have informed that there was no permanent clerk for receiving certificates and she alone was authorized to issue such a receipt. The petitioner started to shout and used intemperate language. All this happened in the immediate vicinity of the Assistant Registrar-3rd respondent and Poonam Rani immediately submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on the same day. He had forwarded the same to the Special Officer of the Central University, Professor R.K. Deora. The petitioner was reported to have shown his temper even before the Special Officer, who had reported to the Vice Chancellor through an office note informing that the petitioner had asked for the entire file to be placed before the Vice Chancellor directly as the contractual staff was nothing to do with his joining report. Even at the time of receiving the certificates back, he struck off the signature found in the receipt by Ms. Poonam Rani. It was after this office note that the impugned letter had been issued.
4. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be given in favour of the petitioner without actually identifying the nature of employment that the petitioner had. An offer of employment to the C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -4- petitioner becomes the contrct at the moment the offeree accepts the employment and shows up at the University to give his joining report. I have no doubt in my mind that there was a contract on the day when he came and signed the joining report. There was nothing like acceptance of a joining report. The joining report itself is the acceptance of offer of employment by the University. However, if the impugned letter had led to the next stage of treating the post as vacant and the respondent- University had taken the next step of issuing a fresh advertisement for the same post and the petitioner also treats the impugned letter as a letter of termination of service, the matter that has to be seen only is whether such a termination was possible. Even a probationer or a contractual employee cannot be shown the door unless there was a valid justification. A mere clause of contract that the service is terminable at the will of employer without assigning any reason will not allow for an arbitrary decision in the constitutional scheme of things that requires every instrumentality of State that would include University to act fairly to stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, there has been an attempt to assess the petitioner's conduct at the time of joining that he showed an intemperate language against the staff. It was not, therefore, a situation where there was a knee-jerk reaction on the part of University to prevent the petitioner from joining the duty in spite of offer of appointment. If a responsible officer of the University namely an Assistant Registrar had been himself a witness to the incident of rude behaviour by the petitioner against the staff and when the matter was put before a senior Professor, who tried to elicit the facts and who had also given a note to the Vice Chancellor pointing out to the unruly conduct of the petitioner, it was surely within the realm of the C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -5- University to constitute a fact finding committee to consider the complaint given by Ms. Poonam Rani. It is brought through the record of the respondents as Annexure R2/5 that Dr. P. Ramrao and Dr. R.G. Saini, who were respectively the Dean, School of Basic and Applied Sciences and Coordinator Centre of Biosciences had been constituted a Committee to elicit the facts and the Committee has also given a report testifying the truth of the complaint given by Ms. Poonam Rani. It is not possible for me to sit in judgment over the report of the Committee, for the writ petition is not even to challenge the committee report. As a matter of fact, the petitioner could not have known any of the details of report, which was intra-organizational report where the petitioner had not been given any opportunity to participate.
5. As of now, I find that there is no order of termination. I have already observed that after an offer of appointment is given and when an employee reports at the office and accepts the employment and gives a report of his joining, the contract becomes complete and it is not possible to again serve a letter showing that the joining report is not accepted. Acceptance of a joint report is a formal recognition of the employer registering in the official records the time of joining. The petitioner ought to have known that he was just then entering the University and he ought to have taken his high learning to sit lightly on his shoulders and not thrown his airs around to use it against a computer operator receiving certificates at the reception. If he had allowed his temper to flow on the first day, he could not have expected that he would be welcomed by the University with a bouquet of flowers. The documents filed in Court do not even show recommendation of Committee to the Vice Chancellor not to accept the joining report but C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -6- the impugned letter has been signed by the Assistant Registrar that the competent authority was not accepting the joining report. No purpose will be served by quashing the letter rejecting the joining report. I have not been shown any particular requirement by any of the Rules that there must be an acceptance of a joining report. As I have already observed that it is merely a record of what happens at the time of a person joining. Only a greater pragmitism must prevail and both parties must relent from their respective tough stand. The high credentials of a young scientist, who got his Directorate from reputed University from USA ought not to be trashed for a petty squable at the reception counter. I would direct the matter to be placed before the Vice Chancellor of the University for an appropriate consideration and if the petitioner is prepared to mend his ways and give his assurance about good conduct, the respondent-University should take a pragmistic decision and allow the petitioner to continue. It shall be left to the parties to bargain how they will treat this entire period from the time he was issued with the impugned letter till the final decision is taken by the respondent when the matter is placed before the Vice Chancellor for reconsideration of the decision.
6. The writ petition is therefore disposed of and the matter be placed before the Vice Chanellor of the University for appropriate decision within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 16, 2012 Pankaj*