Gujarat High Court
Geeta Shaileshkumar Vyas - Professor ... vs Gujarat Vidyapeeth (Deemed ... on 15 April, 2015
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4777 of 2015
=================================================
GEETA SHAILESHKUMAR VYAS - PROFESSOR (SOCIAL WORK)....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT VIDYAPEETH (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) & 7....Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJENDRA PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 8
MR UDAYAN P VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 7
=================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 15/04/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment is permitted, with a direction to carry out the same today itself. Petition is taken up for final hearing.
1(A) This petition is preferred challenging the action of respondent No.3 seeking following reliefs:-
"(10) In the above-said premises, the petitioner prays that:-
(A) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned notice/order dated 27.12.2014 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from the post of Professor (Social Work) of Vidhyapeeth, on expiry of 3 months i.e. w.e.f.
26.03.2015 after office hours, as is being passed by respondent No.3 & 4 without any authority and power and is illegal, bad in law, malafide, arbitrary, stigmatic, punitive, camouflage and is based on no evidence. (B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that respondent No.3 & 4 is responsible Page 1 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER for passing such an arbitrary, malafide and illegal notice without any authority and power and further be pleased to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lacs only) to the petitioner towards exemplary costs.
(C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No.1- Gujarat Vidhyapeeth to pay the cost to the petitioner in first instance and the, to recover the same from respondents No.3 and 4;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay operation, implementation and further execution of the impugned notice dated 27.12.2014 at Annexure-D, vide which petitioner is retired from service on expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of notice i.e. after office hours on 26.03.2015.
(E) Pending admission,hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Court may kindly be pleased to restrain respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 from putting an end to the services of the petitioner in any manner, treating her on so-called probation or probation, as the case may be.
(F) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that in case of success of the petitioner in this petition, her services may not be put to an end in any manner during or on completion of her probation or so-called probation period, as the petitioner apprehends that if she succeeds in this petition, her services will be put to an end mamafidely treating her on probation, on the basis of the same material referred in the impugned notice under challenge.
In the alternative, This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that if any such order is passed during probation, the same will not be implemented or operated for a further period of 3 months from the date of service of the same upon petitioner so as to enable her to challenge the same and during this the petitioner will remain in service.
Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER
(G) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief and/or order in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner."
2. Petitioner herein was appointed as lecturer in the year 1983. She was selected thereafter as reader and in the year 2012, she was appointed as professor and is working with respondent No.1 from 16.7.2012. Her probation period was of two years. On 27.4.2013 such period of two years came to be extended for the period of 59 days. Thereafter also extension was made of 298 days. Challenge is made to notice dated 27.12.2014 where the petitioner has been directed to be retired from service on completion of three months period. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3, on various ground raised in this petition, the same has been challenged with the reliefs stated above.
3. This Court initially at the time of issuing notice, protected the petitioner by way of interim relief dated 24.3.2015 in the following manner:-
"1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated December 27, 2014, by which the respondent No.2-Vice Chancellor directed the petitioner to retire from service after a period of three months from the date of receipt of such notice i.e. after office hours on March 25, 2015.
2. The petitioner seeks quashment of the Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER impugned notice on various grounds raised in the memorandum of the petition. Shri Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fervently urged that the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing impugned notice to the petitioner is bad and unsustainable.
3. The respondent No.1 on filing a Caveat Application is represented by the learned counsel Shri Udyan Vyas, who has defended the impugned notice and has urged that it is the decision taken by the respondent-Vice Chancellor, who is authorised under the Rules to compulsorily retire an employee. He has, however, shown his desire to file an affidavit- in-reply by seeking adjournment and has strongly objected to grant of any interim relief.
4. Considering the fact that the impugned notice retires the petitioner after office hours on March 25, 2015 and minimum one week's time is sought for by the respondent No.1 for filing affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner deserves to be protected in terms of the interim relief as prayed for in paragraph 10(D).
5. Notice, returnable on April 15, 2015. Meanwhile, there shall be interim relief in terms of paragraph 10(D). Shri Udyan Vyas, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
A copy of the affidavit-in-reply to be filed by the respondents shall be furnished to the petitioner on or before April 07, 2015. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed on or before April 13, 2015.
Direct Service is permitted to respondent Nos.2 to 8. The petitioner is permitted to serve the respondent No.8-UGC through Registered Post A.D."
4. Matter has been posted today as the time for completing the pleadings had been asked for and on specifying the schedule, the same has come up today. Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER
5. It had been pointed out to this Court by learned advocate Mr. Udayan Vyas that the impugned notice dated 27.12.2014 has been withdrawn and therefore, this matter has become infructuous. Learned advocate Mr. Rajendra Patel appearing for the petitioner objected to such version and had insisted that the draft amendment be allowed. After permitting the draft amendment both the sides have been heard at length.
6. It is averred in the draft amendment that withdrawal of the earlier notice dated 27.12.2014 given by the erstwhile Vice Chancellor vide letter dated 7.4.2015 is again contrary to the provisions governing the functioning of respondent No.1 institute. The petitioner also has sought stay of the operation of such letter dated 7.4.2015.
7. It is fervently submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Patel that respondent No.3 had no authority to issue the impugned notice 27.12.2014. Such action was within the purview of Executive Committee. It is only in the case of dire urgency that the powers are given to respondent No.3. There is no pleading to indicate that there was some such urgency existed for respondent No.3 to issue the notice, which is impugned Page 5 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER in the present petition. It is his say that the petitioner has various apprehensions and possibly, it cannot be ruled out that respondent may take a shorter route and harass the petitioner further.
8. According to the learned advocate Mr. Vyas, the principal challenge is to the notice of December, 2014 and when such notice itself has been withdrawn by the very authority, which according to the petitioner had no authority, rest of the aspects are in the realm of apprehension.
9. Having heard both the sides and having also considered the material on record, the petition is taken up for final hearing in wake of further development when respondent No.3 has chosen to withdraw the notice which was impugned in the present petition. All prayers of the petitioner revolve around the wrong exercise of powers of respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned notice. Respondent No.3 when has chosen to withdraw such notice, on the ground raised by the petitioner that the Executive Committee had such powers to take actions against the petitioner and not the respondent No.3, and therefore, the withdrawal by respondent No.3 itself is impermissible, is hardly Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER a sustainable submission.
10. It is rightly being indicated by learned advocate Mr.Vyas that the substantive challenge in this petition is to the impugned notice and once that is withdrawn, the rest what remains is essentially based on apprehension.
11. If in future in accordance with the prevalent rules/regulations, the respondents choose to take any action, as is being apprehended by the petitioner, this Court cannot, at this stage, grant any protection in absence of any concrete base, except directing the respondents to follow strictly the rules/regulations so also the provisions applicable and observe the well settled principles law in respect of the service conditions of the petitioner.
12. This Court is of the firm opinion that with the withdrawal of the notice when the very cause of action has come to an end, any other and further prayer sought for, deserve no consideration, at this stage. The petitioner can always take recourse to the law, in the future if a fresh cause arises.
13. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Patel has Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/4777/2015 ORDER requested that the petitioner intends to file an application for voluntary retirement, the respondents may decide it in accordance with law to which Mr. Vyas has no objection.
14. Petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) SUDHIR Page 8 of 8