Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mohisin Arabegum vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 16 November, 1998
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR2328
ORDER
1. The petitioner is one of the 124 lecturers, who had been favoured with temporary appointments against unsanctioned posts for fixed periods and emoluments therefor, by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-Mysore University in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short, the 'Act') from time to time during the last several years. The petitioner has now approached this Court under writ jurisdiction for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent-University for regularisation of her services meaning thereby for commanding the authorities under the Act to create a post and absorb her against the same by waiving the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 28, 35, 36, and 49 of the Act.
Facts
2. The present petitioner has filed orders issued by the Registrar of the respondent-University (Annexure-A series) by which she had been given temporary appointments from time to time in the University's Evening College, Mysore. The first part of the order dated 28-1-1997 (Annexure-A8) reads thus.--
Sub: Stop-gap arrangements --Appointment of temporary (full-time) Lecturers at University Constituent Under-
graduate Colleges.
ORDER No. ET-3/192 of 1996-97, dated 28th January, 1997 Pursuant to the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, the following persons are appointed as temporary (full-time) Lecturers in the University Evening College, Mysore, w.e.f. the date noted against their names or from the date of their report for duty till the end of the academic year 1996-97 i.e., upto 31st March, 1997 or earlier if the appointment ceases for any other reasons on an honorarium of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) per month.
Sl. No. Name Subject to be taught Date from which appointed (up to 31-3-1997)
1. XXX XXX XXX
9. Mohseen Ara Begum Urdu 16-1-1997
3. The second part of the above order had set out a clear warning to the petitioner that the "appointment is purely on temporary basis to cope with the workload in the University Constituent Under-graduate College and these appointments are not made against any sanctioned posts of clear vacancies and therefore she cannot make any claim for absorption to regular service".
4. In the third part of the appointment order at Annexure-A8, it was required from the petitioner that if she is agreeable to the above terms she may report to the Principal of the concerned college for joining duty subject to furnishing of undertaking containing the following.
"1. I understand that my employment as temporary (full-time) Lecturer in the University is purely on temporary basis tenable only for the period till the end of this academic year of 1996-97 and that my services may be dispensed with at any time without notice or without assigning any reason.
2. I will not accept any remunerative job other than the temporary (full-time) appointment offered to me in the University Order No. ET-3/192 of 1996-97, dated 28-1-1997.
3. I will not stay in any of the University Hostels.
4. I shall not participate in any demonstration either individually or in a group, which is against the administration of the University.
5. I accept the above temporary appointment on the above said conditions".
5. From the averments and stipulations made in the appointment letter as quoted above, it is clear that the Vice-Chancellor as well as the petitioner fully knew that the temporary appointment had been given on contract basis for a fixed term and for a fixed honorarium and that too against unsanctioned posts creating no lien or right of permanent absorption against any sanctioned posts. The appointment order also spells out that the expenditure on account of payment of honorarium payable to the appointees will be made out of 'Salary under Block Grant'.
6. Mr. Laxminarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has stated that subsequent to the expiry of the period under the above order at Annexure-A8 some fresh order in similar terms has been passed in favour of the petitioner. But to my mind that is not very material for deciding the question involved herein.
7. The Registrar of the University in his affidavit dated 17-9-1998 at para 8 has tried to justify making of temporary appointments by setting out the following reasons.--
8. The circumstances under which these temporary appointments and reappointments were made from time to time, is submitted hereunder:
(i) During 1992-93, two Post-graduate Centres, one at Mandya and another at Hassan, were started with the approval of the State Government, with ten Masters Degree Courses, in the interest of rural students of the above places. The State Government is yet to approve the statutes proposed to create posts for these centres. Therefore temporary appointment of Lecturers became inevitable to run the Courses at the above centres.
(ii) Certain new Post-graduate Courses like, Bio-technology, Micro-biology, Environmental Science, Master in Computer Applications were started but the statutes for creation of posts sent to the State Government are yet to be approved, Consequently, temporary appointments were made.
(iii) In certain subjects, teaching has to be imparted in both Languages- English and Kannada to satisfy the demands of the students and also the State Policy. This has resulted in increase of work-load requirement for additional man-power which necessitated temporary appointments.
8. The learned Registrar has also disclosed on affidavit that all the 124 persons including the petitioner have been favoured with appointment for fixed periods and specified honorariums without there being any sanctioned posts justifying the legality of their appointments. He has further disclosed that there are 30 vacancies of sanctioned posts in the University and no appointments were made against such post because the Government has imposed a ban on direct recruitments under its letter dated 20-12-1996 and 5-7-1996. Apart from the said 30 vacancies as stated by him, there are backlog vacancies of reserved categories like Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Anyhow, now he admits that the Government under its letter dated 5-6-1997 has lifted the ban imposed by it earlier on direct recruitment and therefore the procedure for filling up of those posts as per Section 69 of the Act will soon be undertaken.
Statutory Provisions
9. The respondent-University has been established and incorporated under Section 3 of the Act. Section 28 of the Act provides that the University shall have the Faculties of Arts, Commerce, Education, Engineering, Medicine, Law, Science and Technology and such other as may be prescribed by the statutes from time to time and each faculty shall consist of department of studies which cannot be established or abolished except by statutes. This section further provides that each department of studies shall inter alia consist of teachers of the department.
10. Section 35 of the Act enumerates the subject which can be provided by the statutes. Clauses (f), (i), (ii), (1) and (iii) of this section are material for the present purposes, which reads thus.--
Section 35. Statutes.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, the statutes may provide for alt or any of the following matters, namely.--
(a) xxx xxx xxx;
(f) the establishment, maintenance and abolition of faculties, departments, hostels, colleges, and institutions;
(i) the institution, suspension or abolition of Professorships, Readerships, Lecturerships, ministerial and non-teaching posts;
(ia) institution of temporary posts of Lecturer, part-time posts of Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Readers and Professors or temporary posts of any class or classes of non-teaching staff, for any specified period not exceeding one year;
(1) the method of recruitment of teachers.
(m) The conditions of service including emoluments of the employees of the University.
11. Section 36 of the Act provides for the mode and manner of making the statutes. The provision of this section empowers passing of statutes by the Senate in the manner provided therein. For the present purpose, sub-sections (4) and (5) are material which reads thus.--
36. The statutes - Their making.--
(1) xxx xxx xxx.
(4) Every statute passed by the Senate shall be sent to the State Government for submission to the Chancellor for assent. The State Government shall transmit the statutes along with its comments to the chancellor within three months of the date on which it received the statutes from the University. The Chancellor may within one month of the date of receipt of the statutes from the State Government give or withhold his assent thereto or refer it to the Senate for further consideration.
(5) No statute passed by the Senate shall have validity until assented to by the Chancellor.
12. From the above provisions, it is clear that once the Senate sends statutes passed by it to the State Government for submission to the Chancellor for his assent, then it is mandatory on the part of the State Government to transmit the statutes along with its comments to the chancellor within three months from the date of receipt of the statutes from the University. Thereafter, the Chancellor has to take final decision within a month from the date of receipt of the statutes from the State Government either to give or withhold his assent thereto or to refer the statutes to the Senate for further consideration.
13. Sub-section (5) of Section 36 declares that unless the statutes passed by the Senate are assented by the Chancellor, it will have no validity and as such it cannot create any right or obligation.
14. Section 49 of the Act contemplates constitution of a Board of Appointment for selecting persons for appointment as Professors, Librarian, Readers and Lecturers in the University. Sub-sections (2) and (5) thereof provides for constitution of the said Board and its quorum. The other sub-sections provide for the procedure to be followed for the said selections. Sub-sections (4) and (6) are material for the present purpose which reads thus.--
49. Appointment of Teachers, etc.--
(1) xxx xxx xxx.
(4) Every post of Professor, Librarian, Reader or Lecturer to be filled by selection shall be duly and widely advertised together with the minimum and other qualifications, if any, required, the emoluments and the number of posts to be filled, and reasonable time shall be allowed within which the applicants may apply.
(6) The Board shall interview, adjudge the merit of each candidate in accordance with the qualification advertised and prepare a list of persons selected, arranged in the order of merit. It shall forward the list to the Syndicate who shall make appointments in accordance with the same. In case of difference between the Board and the Syndicate, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor whose decision shall be final.
Explanation.--Nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as requiring the Syndicate to make appointment in accordance with the list where he is of the opinion that it does not satisfy the provisions of this Act or the statutes relating to such appointments.
15. Section 15-A of the Act makes provision to make appointments for part-time posts as created under the statutes under clause (1) of Section 35 of the Act for a period not exceeding one year. But, right now, I am not much concerned with this provision.
16. Then comes Section 51-B, which is quite material for the present writ petition and connected writ petitions since it is under the guise of this section that the Vice-Chancellor had been giving appointments on contract basis to the persons like the petitioner. This section reads thus.--
51-B. Temporary appointment.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 49 and 50 the Vice-Chancellor may make temporary appointments of not more than six months duration to posts of Lecturers and such non-teaching staff as may be specified in the statutes provided such posts are either temporary or appointments to such posts cannot be made in accordance with Sections 49, 50 and 51-A without delay.
(2) The appointments under sub-section (1) shall be made in the manner prescribed by the statutes.
17. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 51-B as extracted above, the statutes have been framed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 36 of the Act. Statute regarding temporary appointments have been framed under the title the "Mysore University statutes relating to Temporary Appointments to all posts of Teaching and Non-teaching Staff in the University". Statutes 3, 5, and 6 of these statutes are material and relevant for the present purpose which reads thus.--
"3. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall make temporary appointments of not more than six months' duration to all the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff, the maximum of the scale of pay does not exceed Rs. 1,599/-provided such posts cannot be filled up in accordance with the provisions of the Act, in the normal course without delay, and which warrants immediate appointment in the interest of University work.
4. xxx xxx xxx.
5. With regard to the teaching posts, they shall be filled up after advertisement in local newspapers and also by notifying vacancies in University Colleges/Departments/Institutions in consultation with the Head of the Department/Head of the Institution concerned.
6. The Government Orders issued from time to time regarding reservation of posts of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Communities shall be followed in respect of all such appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts".
18. It has been admitted at the Bar that except on a solitary occasion some time in the year 1992 advertisement had been made for making appointments on temporary basis in terms of Section 36 of the Act. But subsequent thereto, appointments on contract basis have been given to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons without caring to follow the procedure laid down under the above statutes. Apart from this procedural aspect, under Section 51-B of the Act as extracted above, temporary appointments can be given for a period of 6 months to the posts of lecturer as specified in the statutes provided (i) such posts are either temporary, or (ii) appointment to such posts cannot be made in accordance with Sections 49, 50, and 51-A of the Act without delay.
19. The Registrar of the University in his affidavit filed in the connected W.P. Nos. 22430 to 22540 of 1996 has clearly admitted that the contract appointments had been given to 124 persons including the petitioner against unsanctioned posts and that too without adhering to the minimum constitutional/statutory requirement of inviting applications by public advertisement from all eligible candidates. It has also been brought on record that majority of the appointees do not even fulfil the minimum eligibility for appointment to the posts of Lecturer as prescribed by the University Grants Commission under the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, Institution affiliated to it) Regulations, 1991 framed by it under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
Re: Sri B.V. Jeevaji's Regularisation
20. The petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition has stated that the respondent-University by its order 7-4-1997 (Annexure-J) had regularised the services of one Sri B.V. Jeevaji, who was working as temporary Lecturer in the Institute of Development Studies, University of Mysore, and therefore the same benefit should be given to the petitioner as well. In order to ascertain as to under what circumstances the services of Mr. Jeevaji was absorbed as Lecturer, I required the Vice-Chancellor of the University himself to come on record to place the facts.
21. The operative portion of the order of the University at Annexure-J referred to above reads thus.--
"Pursuant to the decision of the University Syndicate passed at its meeting held on 7th February, 1997 and based on the legal opinion, Sri B.V. Jeevaji who was working as temporary Lecturer in the Institute of Development Studies, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore, prior to 1-3-1986 is deemed to have been absorbed and appointed as Lecturer in Agricultural Marketing Management at the Institute of Development Studies, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore, w.e.f. 7-2-1997 the date of Syndicate approval on Rs. 2,200/- per month with usual allowances in Grade Rs. 2,200-75-2800-100-4000 under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1987 as a special case.
This appointment is made against the existing vacant post of Lecturer in Agricultural Marketing Management in the Institute of Development Studies, Manasa Gangotri, Mysore".
22. In the preamble of the above order, it has been noticed that the Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Karnataka, under his letter No. ED 13 UMV 1994, dated 1-9-1994 has clarified to the University that continuous temporary services rendered by Mr. Jeevaji prior to 1-3-1986 may be considered for absorption of the services by the University Syndicate. The said letter of the Government, it has been placed on record along with the affidavit of the Vice-Chancellor. On perusal of the same, I find that no such communication seems to have been made by the Government. The letter of the Government merely explains the legal position requiring the Syndicate to take final decision after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects. The material contents of the letter are to the following effect.--
"With reference to the above, I am directed to state that the request of the University to condone the shortage of seven days to absorb the services of Sri B.V. Jeevaji into the University cannot be considered as there is no such provision in the Temporary Teachers Absorption Act of 1987.
However, on examination of the entire issue, it is found that though Sri B.V. Jeevaji and Shri S.G. Ramamurthy were appointed as temporary Lecturers on 1-9-1978, the University, instead of taking the continuous service rendered by these officials for determining the seniority after reappointment have counted the total No. of services rendered by these officials which is not correct. The seniority of Sri Jeevaji should have been counted from 11-10-1979 and of Shri Ramamurthy from 26-8-1981 i.e., from the date of their reappointment and not the total number of service rendered by these officials as they were purely on temporary basis. Hence, any service rendered prior to the resignations becomes ineligible for determining the seniority of the officials. The matter is, therefore, referred back to the University itself with a request to place the issue again before the Syndicate for taking a final decision after taking into consideration all the aspects of the case.
The action taken in this regard may please be intimated to Government.
The service registers of Sri B.V. Jeevaji and Sri S.G. Ramamurthy are returned".
23. Section 3 of the Karnataka State University Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1987 reads thus.--
3. Absorption and appointment of temporary Lecturers of the Universities.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40 or 51-B of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 28 of 1970), all temporary Lecturers appointed in a University on or before the First day of March, 1984 and who were in service as such on the First day of March, 1986 shall be absorbed and appointed by the University in the vacancies of Lecturers in the Department concerned subject to their fulfilling the conditions of eligibility excluding the age, but including the minimum qualification prescribed by the University concerned under the relevant provisions of the law as applicable on the respective dates of their temporary appointment.
(2) The services rendered by the temporary Lecturers absorbed and appointed under sub-section (1) prior to the date of such absorption and appointment shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law of rule, be taken into consideration for determining the leave and pension but for the purpose of seniority only service from the date of absorption and appointment under this Act shall be taken into consideration:
Provided that such service rendered prior to the date of the appointment and absorption shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the inter se seniority among the persons so absorbed and appointed.
24. From the above provision, it is clear that as rightly observed by the State Government in the above letter, Sri B.V. Jeevaji could not have been absorbed in the service of the University pursuant to the provisions of the above 1987 Act. I also agree with the petitioner that there is no provision under the University Act empowering the Syndicate to take any decision contrary to the specific provisions contained in the Act regarding appointments as in Section 49 in exercise of its purported powers of the management and administration of the revenues and properties of the University and control of all administrative affairs of the University as conferred under Section 25 of the Act. Notwithstanding the fact that the Syndicate of the University is the supreme executive body but it can exercise its powers of administration subject to the other provisions of the Act and not in derogation or violation thereof.
25. In this view of the matter, it is for the Syndicate to take appropriate decision to undo the wrong. But one thing is clear to mo that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit arising out of the illegality committed by the University Authorities or the Syndicate. As held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions, shelter under Article 14 can be taken only for claiming equality in legal pursuits but the said constitutional guarantee cannot be resorted for perpetuating the illegalities. Therefore, the order passed by the Syndicate in favour of Sri B.V. Jeevaji cannot be of any avail or help to the petitioner.
Law as judicially laid down
26. In the case of C.B. Rajeshwari v The Chancellor and Another, the Division Bench of this Court, considering the facts identical to the present case, had rejected the pleas of regularisation by holding that.--
"4. The University being a creature of the statute can act only in confirmity with the provisions of the Act and there can be no appointments made contrary to Sections 49 and 51-B of the Act. If temporary appointments are made under Section 51-B, regardless of the limitations imposed therein and such appointees are continued in service for long periods of time without making any regular recruitment under Section 49 of the Act, such action is not only violative of the provisions of the Act but also the pledge of equality ensured under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Though the statute permits appointments being made under Section 51-B of the Act, after limited publicity, the continuation of such appointees after the period of six months is in violation of the provisions of Section 51-B of the Act, and such continuation cannot confer any right or afford a ground on those appointees so as to defeat the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution".
27. The above view taken by the Division Bench was subsequently followed with approval by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangalore University v Dr. C. Kusumakara Hebbar, in paragraphs 9.2 and 10 whereof it has been held that.--
"9.2, As already pointed out, barring a few appointments which have been made against the existing vacancies of Lecturers, all other appointments in question are made by the Vice-Chancellor without there being in existence any vacancy in the posts of Lecturers. The appointments have been made either against the vacancies of Readers or of Professors. Thus, the Vice-Chancellor has exercised the power under Section 51-B of the Act, most arbitrarily and without due regard to the parameters of his power as contained in Section 51-B of the Act, has made appointments to the posts of Lecturers as against the vacancies of Readers and Professors.
10. When the appointments are made without there being any vacancy of Lecturers and some of the appointments are made against the vacancies reserved for SC/ST in respect of which recruitment is in progress, to direct to continue such appointees in the posts of Lecturers, would result in continuing them without there being any vacancies of Lecturers".
28. The aforesaid judgments have been followed by a learned Single Judge in the case of C.R. Rekha v University of Mysore , rejecting the prayer for regularisation of services as a lecturer under identical situation as appearing in the present case.
29. In the case of Patna University v Dr. (Mrs.) Amita Tiwari, on 26-2-1983, the University appointed the respondent as a lecturer 'on purely ad hoc basis on an honorarium of Rs. 25/- per lecture' till regular appointment was made in accordance with the provisions of law. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for regularisation. Having failed before the University Authorities at the first instance, she filed a writ petition in the High Court but that was dismissed. But, subsequently, on the recommendations of University, the Chancellor under his order dated 18-9-1990 directed for regularisation of her service on compassionate grounds. But University found it difficult to carry out the said order under the existing statutes. At this stage, the respondent filed another writ petition before the High Court for implementation of the order of the Chancellor, which was allowed by the High Court. The University went in appeal to the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that (paras 20 and 21).--
". . . . No provision has been brought to our notice which permits the Chancellor to direct regularisation of the services of a Lecturer on 'compassionate grounds'. In the present case the respondent was appointed on an ad hoc basis till regular appointments were to be made and regular appointments required a qualification which the respondent did not possess and further, regular appointment could not be made except by consulting the relevant Services Commission.
21. The result is no doubt unfortunate but we are unable to find any provision to sustain the orders of the Chancellor dated 18-9-1990 and 22-6-1991. The High Court was, therefore, not correct in directing the enforcement of these orders. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. Orders passed by the University consequent to the judgment of the High Court are also set aside".
30. The law relating to regularisation has now been succinctly clarified by the three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and Others v State of Bihar and Others, in paragraph 13 whereof it has been held that.--
"In this connection it is pertinent to note that question of regularisation in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies. Firstly, if on any an available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointments are made on an ad hoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if it is found that the concerned incumbents have continued to be employed for a long period of time with or without any artificial breaks, and their services are otherwise required by the institution which employs them, a time may come in the service career of such employees who are continued on an ad hoc basis for a given substantial length of time to regularise them so that the concerned employees can give their best by being assured security of tenure. But this would require one pre-condition that the initial entry of such an employee must be made against an available sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and regulations governing such entry. The second type of situation in which the question of regularisation may arise would be when the initial entry of the employee against an available vacancy is found to have suffered from some flaw in the procedural exercise though the person appointing is competent to effect such initial recruitment and has otherwise followed due procedure for such recruitment. A need may then arise in the light of the exigency of administrative requirement for waiving such irregularity in the initial appointment by competent authority and the irregular intial appointment may be regularised and security of tenure may be made available to the concerned incumbent. But even in such a case the intial entry must not be found to be totally illegal or in blatant disregard of all the established rules and regulations governing such recruitment. In any case back door entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. However, there would never arise any occasion for regularising the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could even be effected. Such an entry of an employee would remain tainted from the very beginning and no question of regularising such an illegal entrant would ever survive for consideration, however competent the recruiting agency may be".
(emphasis supplied)
31. In the case of State of Punjab v Surender Kumar, the respondents were appointed as part-time Lecturers under Annexures-P/1 and P/2 respectively on the specific condition that they could be relieved at any time without notice and that the payment would be made at the rate indicated therein on hourly basis. The respondents filed writ petitions seeking regularisation in their posts as Lecturers with salary on regular pay-scale. The same was allowed. But, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court by holding that.--
(i) "It is not suggested that the respondents accepted the terms set out in Annexures-P/1 and P/2 under mistake. We, therefore, do not find any reason as to why the specific terms on which the appointments were made could not be enforced". (para 5)
(ii) "The learned Counsel for the respondents also could not suggest any ground for sustaining the impugned order except contending that this Court has issued directions for absorption of temporary or ad hoc Government servants on permanent basis in several cases. It has been argued that if this could be done by this Court without assigning any reason, it should be open to the High Court as well to allow writ petitions in similar terms. We are not in a position to agree". (para 5)
(iii) "The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary 'for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it', which authority the High Court does not enjoy". (para 6) Conclusion and Directions
32. Keeping in view the statutory provisions as noticed above and the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court, since the petitioner had been given an ad hoc appointment on contract basis in obvious flagrant and blatant violation of the statutory provisions contained under Section 51-A of the Act and the statutes framed thereunder by the Vice-Chancellor against unsanctioned posts and that too, without following the mandatory procedure of recruitment, her initial entry in the services of the University was illegal and as such as laid down by the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar's case, supra, she cannot claim any regularisation. Moreover, permanent appointments can be made only by a duly constituted Board of Appointments as per Section 49 of the Act on following the procedure provided therein. It has to be clearly borne in mind that, under the provisions of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor has not been given any power of making any permanent appointment.
33. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with clear directions that.--
(i) the Vice-Chancel for of the University should not make any appointment either on an ad hoc or temporary basis unless there are clear vacancies against sanctioned posts and the procedure as laid down under the statutory provisions as noticed above is strictly compiled with.
(ii) the State Government must transmit all the statutes pending consideration before it with its comments to the Chancellor within the time frame fixed under Section 36(4) of the Act.
34. If at any time hereinafter, it is found that the University Authorities or any political or administrative executives have acted in violation of the above law laid down by this and the Apex Court, then they may run the risk of.--
(i) being proceeded with committing contempt of this Court for disobedience of the law judicially laid down as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Baradakanta Mishra v Bhimsen Dixit.
(ii) they may be saddled with exemplary damages keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, a Registered Society v Union of India and Others.
(iii) order for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 being 'public servants' within the meaning of Section 2(e) thereof.
35. Let a copy of this order be immediately sent to the Registrars of all the Universities of the State for being placed before respective Vice-Chancellors and the Syndicate for their information so as to ensure that if any appointment is made or continued in violation of the statutory provisions as noticed above, then the same be immediately corrected.
36. A copy of the order may also be made immediately available to Ms. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader, for ensuring the necessary compliance by the State Government.
37. Writ petition stands dismissed as ordered above. But, without any order as to costs.