Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Kumar vs Hindu College on 18 April, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.54 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.54 of 2009 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : April 18, 2012
Rajiv Kumar APPELLANT
VERSUS
Hindu College, Amritsar and another RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K.S.Rekhi, Advocate for respondent-1.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant questions the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered on 4.12.2008 dismissing his writ petition which he had filed to challenge the order of termination of his services as a Lecturer in Computer Science, which termination had been ordered by his employer (Hindu College, Amritsar) on the ground that the appellant did not possess the necessary qualification of passing a U.G.C. Test as prescribed by them in the appointment letter.
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that he was offered employment and a condition was prescribed in the appointment letter LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.54 of 2009 -2- requiring the petitioner to pass a U.G.C. Test which condition was never imposed in the advertisement and was also not a condition precedent as per the requirements of the employment and therefore, the insistence on this condition was unwarranted and consequently, the termination based on such an insistence was bad.
The learned Single Judge took the view that the employer was very well within its rights to prescribe the higher qualification than the minimum eligibility qualification.
In this Letters Patent Appeal, while questioning the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant apart from reiterating his stand in the writ petition as noticed above, has also contended that no person employed by the University as Lecturer in the Faculty of Computer Science possesses the U.G.C. Test qualification and therefore, to single out the petitioner and terminate his services on this ground is clearly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has sought to justify the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and has also stated that since the appointment letter required the petitioner to have passed the U.G.C. test and in the eventuality of the petitioner not having done so, the respondent/College was very well within its rights to terminate the services of the petitioner.
We have duly considered the matter and the contentions raised before us.
Factually, there is no dispute that in the advertisement, there was no prescription of an incumbent passing a U.G.C. test, but at the time of offering employment to the petitioner, the condition of passing the U.G.C. test was imposed and the appointment was made subject to this clearance. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.54 of 2009 -3-
We feel that the action of the respondents is arbitrary to say the least for the reason that apart from the fact that the advertisement did not prescribe the qualification, it was also not a necessary qualification to have been possessed by an incumbent in view of the letter written by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar on 5.7.1999 (Annexure P-5), wherein the Syndicate of the University took a conscious decision which is extracted here below :-
"47. Discussion on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor, it was decided that by adopting the uniform policy regarding the appointment of the teachers for the courses for Technical and Management falling under All India Council for Technical Education (A.I.C.T.E.), the qualifications laid down by the aforesaid council are being made applicable."
It is not disputed that the respondent/College is affiliated to the Guru Nanak Dev University and hence bound by its decisions. Appendix-E to these decisions lays down the minimum qualifications and experience prescribed for a teaching post at the degree level of technical institution and for the post of Lecturer, the qualification prescribed is as follows :-
Sr. Cadre Qualification Experience Qualification experience for No. candidates from Industry & Profession.
1. Lecturer First class No minimum Bachelor's degree in requirement.
the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology or First Class Master's degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/ Technology.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.54 of 2009 -4-The appellant possesses this qualification and in view of the decision of the Syndicate, which has not been disputed by the respondent/College it is evident that the insistence by the University upon the appellant clearing the U.G.C. test was unfounded as per the prevailing regulations. The University having consciously opted for the qualification prescribed by the All India Council for Technical education (A.I.C.T.E.), the insistence on clearance of U.G.C. test was therefore, perverse and consequently, the action of terminating the services of the appellant on this ground necessarily has to be termed to be likewise.
Besides this, during the course of proceedings, the respondent/College was put to test by soliciting information from them as to whether any person appointed by them as Lecturer in the Faculty of Computer Science possesses the U.G.C. test qualification, the response to which was received by way of an affidavit of Shri Paramjit Kumar son of Amar Nath stating inter alia as follows :-
"2. That out of all the members of the faculty of Computer Science of Hindu College, Amritsar, who have been appointed as Lecturer in Computer Science on or after 19.6.2002 nobody has passed the UGC Test (NET)."
It may be noticed that the appellant's services were terminated on 7.6.2002 and when this date is read in conjunction with the aforesaid statement made on affidavit, it is clearly reflective of the fact that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the appellant being singled out is obviously correct.
An employer is expected to have an even-handed approach towards his employees and cannot be expected to apply different yard-sticks to set them.
In the instant case, however, the facts establish that the appellant has LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.54 of 2009 -5- been wrongly singled out and made to face brunt of termination of services on the grounds which are totally unsustainable.
We find that the learned Single Judge had mis-directed himself in not appreciating the aforesaid facts.
We, therefore, accept the Letters Patent Appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and as a consequence therefor, the writ petition is accepted and the termination order of the writ-petitioner is set aside. The writ petitioner would therefore, be entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
( RANJAN GOGOI ) ( MAHESH GROVER )
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
April 18, 2012
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO