Karnataka High Court
S.P. Raghunath S/O Ponnuswami vs The Secretary on 19 July, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
W.P No. 104262 of 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT PETITION NO.104262 of 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
S.P. RAGHUNATH
S/O S.P.PONNUSWAMY
AGE:68 YEARS,
OCC:RETD. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
R/O IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560098
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
AND DEVELOPMENT,
UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110 001.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
D.A.W.COMPLEX, KHANDWA ROAD,
INDORE 452107 MADHYA PRADESH
3. THE ADDL. SECRETARY,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUREAU,
ROOM NO.118, C WING,
SHASTRI BHAVAN,
DR.R.P.ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110001
W.P No. 104262 of 2018
:2:
4. UNDER SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
OF DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
TECHNICAL SECTION 1
SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001
5. THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
D.A.W. COMPLEX, KHANDWA ROAD,
INDORE 452 107, MADHYA PRADESH.
6. THE SECRETARY (CO-ORDINATION)
CABINET SECRETARIAT,
DIRECTORATE OF PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN SANSAD MARG,
NEW DELHI 110001
7. THE DIRECTOR,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
WALMI BUILDING, NEAR HIGH COURT
DHARWAD 580 011.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT Nos.2, 4, 5 AND 6 TO IMPLEMENT THE
FAVOURABLY REDRESSED GRIEVANCE
NO.PRSEC/E/2017/02643 REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF
GRIEVANCE NO.DPG/0/2016/81199 FOR DUTY REPORT AT IIT,
DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-"T" DATED 07.12.2016, AND
FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURES-"W"
DATED 30.01.2017, ANNEXURE-"X" DATED 09.02.2017 AND
ANNEXURE-"Z4" DATED 15.07.2017.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
W.P No. 104262 of 2018
:3:
ORDER
It is the case of the petitioner herein that pursuant to the advertisement on 06.03.2013 appeared in Times of India English daily news paper, he applied for the position of Chief-Engineer (Project) on contract basis with the Indian Institute of Technology-Indore (hereinafter referred to as the 'IIT Indore', for brevity) as per his application at Annexure-A. He was appointed vide Official Memorandum at Annexure-B dated 19.07.2013 for a period of two years on a consolidated salary. He was designated as Project In- charge for the construction of permanent campus at Simrol under Phase-1A. The said Project in-charge was irrevocable till the completion of the Project under Phase- 1A. However, he was relieved from the contract on 10th July 2015 after completion of two years.
2. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since he had applied for the contract for a period of 5 years and that his appointment was irrevocable, he ought W.P No. 104262 of 2018 :4: not to have been relieved on 10th July 2015. Hence, he sought for a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus seeking direction to respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 to implement, favourably, redress his grievance and to consider his representations submitted to the respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who in his argument while reiterating the contentions taken up in the memorandum of writ petition, submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner was for a period of 5 years. Even the document at Annexure-D shows that it is irrevocable till completion of the Project under Phase- 1A. The document at Annexure-E shows that he was nominated by the Committee for the tenure which ends on July 11, 2018. As such, his early discharge from the service is against his rights and against the terms of his appointment.
W.P No. 104262 of 2018:5:
4.(i). A perusal of Annexure-A goes to show that the petitioner has produced a copy said to be his application for the alleged post of Chief-Engineer( Project) on contract basis. In his application, at the subject, he has shown it as five years and has referred to an advertisement dated 06.03.2013 said to have been given by the respondents- IIT-Indore published in the news paper 'Times of India'. However, the said news paper publication has not been produced by the petitioner. As such, it is not known as to what terms the recruiting institution had imposed in the advertisement for the post of Chief-Engineer( Project).
(ii). Annexure-F produced by the petitioner is a reply received by him from the IIT Indore for his query under the RTI Act. The said document shows that the present petitioner had specifically enquired the IIT Indore to say whether "tenure of five years" was mentioned in his application for the post of Chief-Enginer (Project). In reply, the IIT Indore has stated that the application received by the Institute had a phrase "Period of 5 years" W.P No. 104262 of 2018 :6:
striked out. That means when the Institution received the application for consideration, the term shown by the applicant in his application as 5 years was striked out. There are no material to show that the said reply has been challenged by the petitioner before any Forum.
(iii). The letter of appointment dated 19.07.2013, which the petitioner has produced at Annexure-B issued by the IIT Indore, shows that the appointment of the petitioner was initially for a period of two years from the date of joining. Thus, the alleged letter of appointment which is in the form of an official memorandum specifically stipulates that the appointment was confined to a period of two years. It is note-worthy that the said letter of appointment nowhere mentions any provision granting any extension of appointment after completion of the initial period of two years. As such, the letter of appointment, prima facie, clearly, mentions that it is for two years. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said letter at the appropriate time before the W.P No. 104262 of 2018 :7: appropriate authority. On the contrary, he accepted the letter appointing him only for a period of two years.
Admittedly, as at the time of submitting the application, the present petitioner was a senior citizen and a retired Chief-Engineer. As such, the appointment of the petitioner was on contract basis for a limited period.
(iv). Bringing to the notice of the Court the Annexures-C and D, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that these two documents show that his appointment was irrevocable till the completion of the project under Phase-1A.
Annexure-C is an Office Order dated 06.03.2014 issued by the IIT-Indore wherein it is mentioned in the preamble that "it was decided to designate the Chief Engineer (Project) as Project In-charge". With such a preamble, an Order was passed designating the Chief- Engineer (Project) as Project In-charge for the construction of permanent campus at Simrol under Phase-1A. Thus, it W.P No. 104262 of 2018 :8: can be inferred that the petitioner Dr. S.P. Raghunath, who was appointed for a term of two years as Chief Engineer (Project), was not given a personal promotion to the post of Project in-charge, but his designation itself was redesignated as Project in-charge.
(v). Annexure-D is a written submission dated 06.06.2014. In the said written submission signed by the petitioner, he has requested for empowerment of Chief Engineer and Project In-charge irrevocable till the completion of project under Phase-1A. As such, the said document is only a request for continuing his designation till completion of project under Phase-1A. No official order shown to have granted the said request has been produced by the petitioner in this writ petition. Even assuming that such a request was accorded by the concerned authority, still the request is only with respect to continuation of designation in the office till the completion of the project under Phase-1A without any revocation. By that itself, it cannot be inferred that the W.P No. 104262 of 2018 :9: present petitioner, who was appointed for a period of two years, was reconsidered for appointment irrevocable for an uncertain period or that it was an order of his continuation. It is also for the reason that the said requisition at Annexure-D is also made within a year of appointment of the petitioner with the IIT Indore. As already observed above, the continuation of the post cannot be treated as continuation of the appointment of the present petitioner in the said post.
(vi). Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-E which is with the title 'Form of Nomination to IRC Technical Committees for 2015-17'. The name of the Committee is shown as 'Project Preparation, Contract Management and Quality Assurance Committee'. The 'name of the nominee' shown is the petitioner herein. Referring to the said nomination of the Committee, where the tenure is shown as ending on July 11, 2018, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said nomination shows that the petitioner W.P No. 104262 of 2018 : 10 : continues to be under the appointment of the respondent- Institution till July 2018. The said argument is also not acceptable for the reason that the said document at Annexure-E is neither a letter of continuation of tenure of appointment or letter of appointment nor even the reconsidered order of appointment, as the title of the document itself shows it is purely a form of nomination to a particular committee. Nomination to a particular committee cannot be construed either as an order of extension of the tenure of appointment or fixation of the tenure of appointment.
(vii). A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner by themselves go to show that he has produced a document at Annexure-S dated 28.11.2016 which is shown to be his representation to the Additional Secretary, Technical Education Bureau, New Delhi. A reading of the said letter goes to show that the present petitioner had approached the Prime Minister's office and had done various correspondences including through E- W.P No. 104262 of 2018 : 11 : mail to the addressee in the said letter. In the said letter dated 28.11.2016, the petitioner has stated that he had applied for the post of Chief Engineer (projects) in IIT Indore as against their public Notification dated 07.03.2013 with a specific mentioning of five years tenure. It does not mean that the advertisement referred to in the said letter or in the writ petition, had invited applications mentioning that the post of Chief engineer was for five years. It is in response to the advertisement, the present petitioner had given his offer to serve as a Chief Engineer for a period of five years. Admittedly, even as per Annexure-B-his offer was accepted for a period of two years duration. Had the petitioner was not willing to accept appointment order unless his demand for a term of 5 years was not acceptable to the IIT Indore, he should not have reported to the duty. In response to the appointment letter/offer of appointment made by the IIT Indore, which was limited for two years, he responded and accepted it by reporting to the duty and serving there for two years. W.P No. 104262 of 2018 : 12 :
In the very same Annexure-S, which is a letter of representation by the petitioner dated 28.11.2016, he has stated that his appointment was on contract and hence, all contentions are subjected to Indian Contract Act. Thus, when the IIT Indore has offered the petitioner appointment for a period of two years, who had accepted it by reporting to the duty and served there for two years, cannot now say that he has been appointed for a period of five years.
In the very same Annexure-S which is a letter dated 28.11.2016, the petitioner has also stated that he has been relieved from the IIT-Indore after completion of two years which was on 10th July 2015 clearly informing him that his tenure of two years was over. He has further stated that he challenged the said relieving order in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and lost the case. Thus, admittedly, his contention that he was appointed for a period of five years was agitated by him before the High W.P No. 104262 of 2018 : 13 : Court of Madhya Pradesh which also did not accept his contention. As such, tenure of his appointment as Chief Engineer has already undergone a judicial scrutiny. However, the petitioner, in the very same representation, has further stated that he was unaware of the manipulation, falsification and forgery of documents by Prof. Mathur to deceive and defraud him and help another person by name N. Varma. As such, his appointment is irrevocable. The said contention is also unacceptable for the reason that when he alleges fraud or manipulation against 3rd party, he should have taken appropriate action against those 3rd parties in the manner known to law. By merely citing their alleged manipulation or fraud, he cannot, by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, get his purpose served by way of extension of his appointment by three more years. It is suffice to say that, prima facie, appreciation of the material produced by the writ petitioner along with writ petition, this Court is not convinced that it is a fit case where notice be ordered W.P No. 104262 of 2018 : 14 : upon the respondents. As such, holding that the present petition is devoid of merit, I dismiss this writ petition at the stage of preliminary hearing.
As requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is open for the petitioner to approach appropriate Civil Court for redressal of his grievances, if any, provided the law permits him.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv