Gujarat High Court
Jayeshkumar Pitambarbhai Patel vs Director General on 8 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 GUJ 932
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12359 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
JAYESHKUMAR PITAMBARBHAI PATEL
Versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUDHIR NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VANDAN BAXI
WITH MS ANUJA S NANAVATI(5229) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MEET THAKKAR, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
MR GM JOSHI(370) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 08/07/2019
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr. G.M. Joshi learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.2 and Mr. Meet Thakkar learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.3 - State.
2. By consent of the parties, the matter is Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.6.2015 passed by the respondent - University, terminating the service of the petitioner.
4. The factual matrix, emerging from the record, are as under:-
5. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Registrar (Class-2) in the pay-scale of Rs.15,600 - 39,100, Grade Pay Rs.5,400 in Raksha Shakti University, Ahmedabad ("the University", for short) vide order dated 16.5.2014 as per the provisions of the Raksha Shakti University Act, 2009, (herein after referred to as the "Act of 2009"). The appointment order contained various terms and conditions governing the appointment of petitioner on probation. It is the case of the petitioner that since the respondent - University was satisfied with the work performed by the petitioner, he was given two additional charges vide orders dated 1.9.2014 and 26.9.2014, which the petitioner despite the health issues, performed them to the satisfaction of the respondent - University.
6. Further, it is case of the petitioner that advertisement which was issued for the post of Assistant Registrar, was signed by the petitioner himself. Immediately on the next day, the Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT services of the petitioner came to be terminated i.e. on 11.6.2015. The action of the respondent - University in terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Registrar, is bad, illegal and deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
7. Heard, Mr. Sudhir Nanavati learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vandan Baxi learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. G.M. Joshi learned advocate for the respondent - University and Mr. Meet Thakkar learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
8. Mr. Sudhir Nanavati learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 16.5.2014 on probation to the post of Assistant Registrar and within a period of 13 months, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated on 11.6.2015. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the respondent - University was satisfied with the performance of the petitioner and that is how the petitioner was given two additional charges on 1.9.2014 and 26.9.2014 for the posts of In- charge Registrar and In-charge University Engineer, respectively.
9. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that before passing the order dated 11.6.2015, inquiry ought to have been conducted under the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2009. While laying emphasis on sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Act of 2009, it is submitted that the action being punitive in nature, opportunity ought to have been offered to the petitioner and having not done so, action of the respondent - University is illegal, bad and in violation of principles of natural justice.
10. Mr. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate while inviting the attention of this court to paragraph 6 of the reply filed by the respondent - University, submitted that the averments in paragraph 6 are punitive in nature and thus would be covered by the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2009. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the said stand of the respondent, is erroneous inasmuch as, the petitioner has performed his duties efficiently and that there was no laxity or lack of initiative on the part of the petitioner in performing his duties. In fact, it was owing to the performance of the petitioner that the petitioner was given two additional charges which also were performed by him to the satisfaction of the respondent - University.
11. Mr. Nanavati, while inviting the attention of this court to the notings in the file and more particularly, the notings dated 10.6.2015, submitted that the respondent - University, has merely used the language of the Condition No.11 of the appointment order dated 16.4.2015.It is contended that the notings in the file, make it clear that the order of termination is not an Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT order of termination simpliciter, but the same is punitive. In fact, termination of the services of the petitioner is mala fide and colourable exercise of power.
12. It is next contended that the termination order dated 11.6.2015, simply mentions that the services of the petitioner are no longer required. It is not that the post of Assistant Registrar has ceased to exist or that the same has been abolished. Therefore, if the post of Assistant Registrar (Class-2) is in existence, it was not open to the respondent - University to have terminated the services of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, reason assigned to the effect that the "services are no longer required", by the respondent - University in the termination order dated 11.6.2015 is without any basis, rendering the order illegal.
13. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the advertisement was issued for the post of Assistant Registrar, signed by the petitioner himself and thereafter, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that the petitioner's services have been terminated only with a view to accommodating other persons.
14. It is submitted that the averments made in paragraph 7 to the effect that fresh recruitment has been undertaken and the Assistant Registrar Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT has been appointed on 31.7.2015, have no relevance inasmuch as, the recruitment notification of 2014 suggests that still there is one post vacant. The averment made in paragraph 7 about effecting appointment on the post of Assistant Registrar, is misleading and incorrect, and has no bearing on the issue under consideration, relating to the legality and validity of the termination order.
15. Mr. Nanavati, submitted that the action of the respondent - University is mala fide inasmuch as, the respondent, was supposed to issue one months's notice. However, no notice has been issued. It is submitted that the conduct of the respondent - University is not confidence inspiring for, the dues of the petitioner were not cleared. It is urged that the petition was filed on 3.8.2015 and after filing of the petition and issuance of the notice, in the interregnum, the respondent - University surreptitiously on 20.8.2015, transferred the dues into the account of the petitioner by electronic mode.
16. Per contra, Mr. G.M. Joshi learned advocate for the respondent - University, at the outset, submitted that while testing the legality and validity of the termination order, what is required to be seen is the nature and contents of the termination order. It is further submitted that what is to be considered is the termination Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT order only. In this behalf, reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Kamlesh R. Brahmbhatt Vs. Memdabad Eduction Society reported in 2004(4) GLR 3610. It is further submitted that this court has categorically observed that while deciding the validity of the order, what is to be seen, is the content of the order, terminating the service of the probationer and nothing beyond. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the reasons, if any, set-out by the management in response to a challenge to such an order, should not be held into the order.
17. Mr. Joshi learned advocate for the respondent
- University, while inviting the attention of this court to the order dated 11.6.2015 at page 17, submitted that a bare perusal of the said order clearly suggests that there is no stigma attached and thus cannot be termed as punitive. The order dated 11.6.2015 under challenge, is pure and simple termination and that the Discipline and Appeal Rules do not apply, much less the provisions of Section 34. It is submitted that it is erroneous on the part of the petitioner to contend that it is only when the University ceases to exist that the services are no longer required and it is then that the services can be terminated. It is further submitted that "services are no longer required"
would suggest that the services which are found to be unsatisfactory, are no longer required. He further submitted that the order dated 11.6.2015 Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT cannot be branded as punitive or stigmatic.
18. Mr. Nanavati learned Senior Advocate, in rejoinder, while reiterating, submitted that the averments made in paragraph 8 of the reply affidavit to the effect that at the time of termination of services, all the dues of the petitioner were paid and were accepted by him without raising any objection, are incorrect inasmuch as, the respondent - University surreptitiously on 20.8.2015 i.e. subsequent to the filing of the present petition, has transferred the dues into the account of the petitioner by electronic mode. Mr. Nanavati, while concluding, submitted that the order dated 11.6.2015 deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be reinstated and confirmed on the post of Assistant Registrar.
19. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the issue for determination before this court is, whether the order dated 11.6.2015 terminating the services of the petitioner can be said to be stigmatic and in violation of principles of natural justice.
20. It is well established position of law that the probationer cannot as a matter of right seek continuance in service. A probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time, during or at the end of Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the period of probation, on account of unsuitability for the post held by him. Observations like unsatisfactory work and conduct would not amount to attaching stigma to the order.
21. It is equally well established that if an informal inquiry, judging the suitability of the probationer for confirmation, is undertaken and on the basis of such inquiry, if a decision has been taken to terminate the service, the said action of the employer cannot be termed as punitive. However, an exception has been carved out to the aforesaid proposition inasmuch as, if misconduct is established by inquiry, and it constitutes the foundation of the action taken, the said action can be invalidated on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice.
22. The contention that the inquiry should have been conducted before passing the order dated 11.6.2015, and in absence of any inquiry, the action is in violation of principles of natural justice, has been answered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2011)4 SCC 447. In the said case, one of the contentions raised by the employee was that order of removal having been passed without holding an inquiry, amounts to not only violation of principles of natural justice, but also amounts to casting a stigma in the career of the employee. The Apex Court held that Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the decision to discharge the employee from service was taken by the employer after considering his overall performance, conduct, suitability for job and while taking decision in this regard, neither is any notice required to be given nor opportunity of hearing. The relevant paragraphs read thus:-
"9. The Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, refuted the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the appellant was on probation when a notification removing him from the service in public interest was issued and that the order passed was just and proper. He denied that the impugned order is stigmatic or in any way punitive or that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice.
10. The records placed before us disclose that at the time when the impugned order was passed, the appellant was working as a Probationer Munsif. A person is placed on probation so as to enable the employer to adjudge his suitability for continuation in the service and also for confirmation in service. There are various criteria for adjudging suitability of a person to hold the post on permanent basis and by way of confirmation. At that stage and during the period of probation the action and activities of the appellant are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of his overall performance a decision is generally taken as to whether his services should be continued and that he should be confirmed, or he should be released from service. In the present case, in the course of adjudging such suitability it was found by the respondents that the performance of the appellant was not satisfactory and therefore he was not suitable for the job. The aforesaid decision to release him from service was taken by the respondents considering his overall performance, conduct and suitability for the job. While taking a decision in this regard neither any notice is required to be given to the appellant nor he is required to be given any opportunity of hearing. Strictly speaking, it is not a case of removal as sought to be made out by the appellant, but was a case of simple discharge from service. It is, therefore, only a termination simpliciter and not removal from service on the grounds of indiscipline or misconduct. While adjudging his performance, conduct and overall suitability, his performance record as also the report from the higher authorities were called for and they were looked into before any decision was taken as to whether the officer concerned should be continued in service or not."Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
23. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the contention about non- holding of the inquiry and the decision being in violation of principles of natural justice, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as, for judging overall performance and taking a decision, neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing is required to be offered to the employee concerned. The Apex Court, has held that the order passed after the said inquiry, is not a case of removal, but a case of simple discharge from service.
24. Adverting to the another limb of contention as to whether order under challenge is stigmatic or not, pertinently, the engagement of the employee on probation is precisely for the reason that the employer during the period of probation has an opportunity to adjudge the suitability of the employee. While adjudging the suitability on the basis of material available on record, without any full-scale inquiry, if the employer chooses not to continue and passes the simple order of discharge, the same cannot be said to be punitive in nature.
25. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. SGPGI of Medical Sciences reported in (2002)1 SCC 520 relied upon by the respondent, is worth referring to. The Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT Apex Court, while considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, observed in paragraph 21, which reads thus:-
"21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) full-scale formal enquiry (b) into the allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld"
26. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others v. Sukhwinder Singh (2005) 5 SCC 569, while allowing the appeal of the State of Punjab, held that when a superior officer in order to satisfy himself, as to whether the employee concerned should be continued in service or not, makes inquiry for the said purpose, it would be wrong to hold that the inquiry which was held was intended for the purpose of imposing punishment. In the case before the Apex Court, the respondent - employee therein joined as a Police Constable and when was sent for training, absented himself from duty without making any application for grant of leave. The appellant - State passed an order, discharging the respondent
- employee from service on the ground that he is not likely to become an efficient Police Officer. The respondent - employee being aggrieved filed a suit, which was decreed in favour of the respondent - employee and the order discharging Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the services, was declared as illegal, null and void. The said judgment was unsuccessfully challenged by the State of Punjab before the first Appellate Authority and in Second Appeal before the High Court. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal of the State of Punjab observed in paragraphs 19 and 20 as under:-
"19. In the present case neither any formal departmental inquiry nor any preliminary fact finding inquiry had been held and a simple order of discharge had been passed. The High Court has built an edifice on the basis of a statement made in the written statement that the respondent was habitual absentee during his short period of service and has concluded therefrom that it was his absence from duty that weighed in the mind of Senior Superintendent of Police as absence from duty is a misconduct. The High Court has further gone on to hold that there is direct nexus between the order of discharge of the respondent from service and his absence from duty and, therefore, the order discharging him from service will be viewed as punitive in nature calling for a regular inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Rules. We are of the opinion that the High Court has gone completely wrong in drawing the inference that the order of discharge dated 16.3.1990 was, in fact, based upon the misconduct and was, therefore, punitive in nature, which should have been preceded by a regular departmental inquiry. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent was on probation having been appointed about eight months back. As observed in Ajit Singh and others etc. vs. State of Punjab and another (supra) the period of probation gives time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant and if he is found not suitable for the post, the master reserves a right to dispense with his service without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period, which is styled as period of probation. The mere holding of preliminary inquiry where explanation is called from an employee would not make an otherwise innocuous order of discharge or termination of service punitive in nature. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the respondent's absence from duty was the foundation of the order, which necessitated an inquiry as envisaged under Rule Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT 16.24(ix) of the Rules.
20. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and also by the lower Courts is wholly erroneous in law and must be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the High Court and also by the learned sub-Judge and learned Additional District Judge are set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed."
27. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case, reiterated the principle that the period of probation gives time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work, ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant and if he is found not suitable for the post, the master reserves the right to dispense with his service without anything more during or at the end of the prescribed period i.e. the period of probation.
28. In the case of Chaitanya Prakash & Anr. vs. H. Omkarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623, the Apex Court held that if an order of termination refers to unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be said to be stigmatic. The Apex Court, while allowing the appeal of the appellant - employer, observed that the Board of Directors, after considering the performance assessment report so also other records, took a considered and conscious decision that the respondent - Officer was not suitable for confirmation and it is thereafter, that the services were terminated. The Apex Court, while Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT confirming the action of the Board of Directors, observed in paragraphs 23 and 24 as under:-
"23. Whether or not a person is suitable to be retained and confirmed in service could be considered and assessed by the Managing Director, namely, appellant no. 1, but he after making an appraisal submitted his report along with all other records of the respondent before the Board of Directors, who finally took the decision. The Board of Directors constituted of responsible persons and they while deciding the suitability of the respondent not only considered the Performance Assessment Report but also considered all other records, and thereafter they took a considered and conscious decision that the respondent was not suitable for confirmation and terminate his service.
24. The said decision of the Board of Directors appears to be in parity with the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court (supra). The reasons mentioned in the letter dated 29.11.1999 - terminating the services of the respondent cannot be said to be stigmatic. The appellant had time and again specifically brought to the notice of the respondent his short comings and no misconduct as such is alleged against the respondent by the appellant and therefore the present case is a case of termination simpliciter due to unsuitability of the respondent and not a case of punishment for misconduct."
29. Pertinently, the appointment order dated 16.5.2014 contained various terms and conditions of appointment. Two of which for the present purpose are set-out hereunder for ready reference:
"5. The appointee shall be on probation for a period of two year. The period of review of the performance of the probationer and the items to be included in the Periodical Apprisal Report and the satisfactory completion of the probation period will be decided by the undersigned.
11. If during the period of probation, his / her behavior and conduct towards the members of the staff is not found satisfactory or if he / she indulges in such activities which are prejudicial to Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT the academic life and atmosphere of the University, his / her services are liable to be terminated either before or on the expiry of the period of probation."
Condition No.5 contemplates that the appointee shall be on probation for a period of two years. The period of review of the performance of the probationer; items to be included in the Periodical Appraisal Report and the satisfactory completion of the probation period were to be decided by the Director General, Raksha Shakti University. Thus, condition No.5 inter-alia provides for period of probation and review of performance.
Condition No.11 provides that during the period of probation, if the behaviour and conduct towards the members of the staff is not found satisfactory or if he / she indulges in such activities which are prejudicial to the academic life and atmosphere of the University, his / her services are liable to be terminated either before or on the expiry of the period of probation.
30. It is evident from the record of the petition that in terms of the appointment letter dated 16.5.2014, the Director General, has called for the files and after assessing the service record of the petitioner, took a decision to terminate the service. The notings in file dated 10.6.2015 (page 45 of the compilation of the petition), relevant excerpts whereof read thus:-
Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT"... called for file. The services of Asstt. Regisrar Shri Jayesh Patel are terminated in view of conditions mentioned in his appointment order. Para 11.
The enclosed file about various memos issued to him about his conduct & behaviour emanating from his various acts of omissions and commissions which are prejudicial to academics and atmosphere of the University."
31. Further, one of the judicially evolved tests, by the Apex Court, viz. (a) a full scale formal inquiry, (b) into allegations involved moral turpitude or misconduct, (c) which culminated in a finding of guilt, is not present in the decision making process. Thus, in absence of the above mentioned test present in the decision making process, the order dated 11.6.2015 terminating the service of the petitioner cannot be construed to be stigmatic or punitive.
32. It is well established that if all the three factors are present, the termination has to be held as punitive, irrespective of the form of the termination order. However, if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination cannot be interfered with. A bare perusal of the material available on record suggests that no full-fledged inquiry was conducted into the allegations of misconduct to find out the guilt against the petitioner. In absence of any inquiry it can be safely concluded that proved misconduct as a result of full scale inquiry was not the foundation, for passing the order dated 11.6.2015. It is not the case of the petitioner Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT that some inquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner and that the charges of misconduct have been proved, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and that the order is passed on the basis of the established misconduct.
33. As mentioned herein above, in the present case, the Respondent No.1 has objectively assessed the performance of the petitioner on the basis of the service record and has taken a decision not to continue the petitioner. Pertinently, Condition No.11 confers liberty / discretion in favour of the Authority to the effect that if during the period of probation, the behaviour and conduct of the employee concerned towards the members of the staff, is not found satisfactory or if he / she indulges in such activities prejudicial to the academic life and atmosphere of the University, the services of the employee concerned are liable to be terminated either before or on the expiry of the period of probation. Taking recourse to the said condition, the Respondent No.1 has taken the decision.
34. Perused the notings in file. It is clear that the factor which weighed with the Respondent No.1 was unsuitability of the petitioner for the post and decision was taken not to continue him. In Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT such an eventuality, it cannot be said that the proved misconduct was the reason for passing the order of termination. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the order under challenge cannot be construed to be stigmatic or punitive in nature and thus, the contention that the order dated 16.5.2014 is in violation of principles of natural justice, pales into insignificance.
35. While adverting to the submission that the termination order under challenge dated 11.6.2015 is mala fide and is tainted with colourable exercise of power, it is pertinent to mention that neither in the petition memo nor in the affidavit-in-rejoinder is there a whisper that the action of the respondent - University is mala fide or that the same was tainted with colourable exercise of power. In absence of any averments much less the allegations against the respondent
- University, the said contention raised during the course of oral submissions does not deserve acceptance and is rejected.
36. The contention that the term "services are no longer required" would suggest that the post of Assistant Registrar has ceased to exist and that if the post is in existence, the reason given in the order dated 11.6.2015, is a camouflage. The said contention is also misplaced for, the fact Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019 C/SCA/12359/2015 CAV JUDGMENT that the term "his services were no longer required" is succeeded by the expression "his service are terminated from his present assignment", which as discernible from the record of the captioned petition was the result of the objective assessment of the service record of the petitioner, judging the general suitability. The said contention is devoid of any merits inasmuch as, the same has not been supported by any provision to the effect that such expression is dependent upon the existence and non-existence of post.
37. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 11.6.2015 does not call for any interference, being simple order, discharging the petitioner from the respondent - University.
38. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) BINOY B PILLAI Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 11 00:42:07 IST 2019