Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City dated 13-11-1976, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Jaipur dated 9-3-1976 were reversed.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff Mohan Melwani filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the University of Rajasthan Jaipur on 10-12-1975. It was contended by the plaintiff that he was appointed as Stenographer on 5-2-1958. and was ordered to be promoted as Stenographer Gr. I with effect from 17-7-1965 The plaintiff was promoted as officiating section Officer on 23-10 1973. The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan University Employees non teaching) Recruitment Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as Recruitment Rules, selected the plaintiff for the post of Section Officer, and he was placed on probation for one year with effect from 4-3-1974. Later on, the plaintiff's probation period was extended for a further period of six months. The extended probation period expired on 3-9-1975. The plaintiff's contention is that in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Recruitment Rules, it should be deemed that he was confirmed after the lapse of two months of the probation period. Two months after the end of the probation period expired on 3-11-3975. On 9-12-1975 the plaintiff was reverted as Stenographer Gr. I. The plaintiff prayed that the order dated 9-12-1975 be declared null and void and he be declared as a confirmed section officer, and the defendant be restrained by means of a permanent injunction from implementing the order of reversion.

3. The defendant, however, contended that the work of the plaintiff was not found satisfactory and that is why his probation period was initially extended for six months, and as there was no improvement he was ordered to be reverted to his substantive post of Stenographer Gr. I. It was also contended that the Vice Chancellor had ordered that the Recruitment Rules would be kept in abeyance with effect from 23-7-1975, and that as these rules had no applicability the plaintiff did not and could not derive any advantage of Rule 33(4), of the Recruitment Rules. The decision of the Vice-Chancellor dated 23-7-1975 was, it was contended, approved by the Syndicate on 21-11-1975. It. was also contended that the order of reversion was not justiciable and could not be challenged in a court of law. It was also contended that any person aggrieved or dissatisfied with an order passed by the administration could prefer an appeal, and in that view of the matter, the plaintiff should have sought his remedy by preferring an appeal before the authority mentioned under the said rules and the suit so brought by him was per se not maintainable

10. On behalf of the defendant-appellant, it was contended that the question of lack of authority in the Registrar in passing the order Ex. 7 dated 9-12-1975 could not be taken up for the first time in the second appeal.

11. The contention of the learned Counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. The plaintiff respondent was appointed as Stenographer on 5-2-1958. He was promoted as Stenographer Gr. I on 17-6-1965. The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under Rule 20 of the Recruitment Rules selected the plaintiff-respondent for the post of Section Officer and placed him on probation for a period of one year which ended on 4-3-1975. The period of probation was extended for another six months up to 3-9-1975. There after, the Registrar by his order dated 9-12-1975, Ex. 7, reverted the plaintiff-respondent to his substantive post of Stenographer Gr. I. The plaintiff-respondent has vehemently contested that the order dated 9-12-1975 is illegal, invalid and inoperative from its very inception. Vide Ex. 5, Registrar recommended to the Vice Chancellor that the existing Recruitment Rules have become inoperative with immediate effect, and till new rules are framed and approved by the Syndicate the selection of personnel to the non-teaching posts it the various cadres above the UDCs level may be provisionally made through open competition on the basis of qualifications experience and efficiency. The Vice-Chancellor on 20-7-1975 agreed with the latter part of this recommendation with the result that the Recruitment Rules were thought to have become inoperative. On 9-12-1975, vide Ex. 7, the plaintiff-respondent was reverted to the post of Stenographer Gr. I. It is further said that the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 23-7-1975 was confirmed by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 21-11-1975. In view of these facts, the most important question to be decided is, whether the Vice-Chancellor is empowered to put the Recruitment Rules in to abeyance. In Section 2(c) of the University of Rajputana Act, 1946, statutes, ordinances, regulations and rules mean respectively statutes, ordinances, regulations and rules made under this Act. Section 31 A provides that any authority of the University specified in Clauses (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii) of Section 17, and any other Board of the University may, subject to the approval of the Syndicate, make Rules, consistent with this Act and the Statutes. Ordinances, and Regulations, providing for all matters solely concerning the conduct of its own business. Under Section 21 of the Act Syndicate is the executive body of the University Under Section 22 the Syndicate exercises the powers and performs the functions mentioned therein. Section 22(g) as originally existed reads as under:

33. The order of reversion Ex. 7 has been passed by the Registrar. Order 357F. provides that the Syndicate when ordering the transfer of a University employee as a penalty from a higher to a lower grade or post may allow him to draw any pay not exceeding the maximum of the lower grade or post which it may think proper. According to Schedule III Srl. No. 2(B) Sub-Clause (1)(a) of the Recruitment Rules, the Vice-Chancellor is the appointing authority. Therefore, he alone could have ordered his reversion. If recourse is taken to Order 357F, then the Syndicate alone could have ordered this reversion. In the instant case, the order has been passed by the Registrar, The Registrar is no authority under the law to pass such order. This being a pare question of law is permitted to be rated in the second appeal. Reference may be made to Official Liquidator v. Purjorjee AIR 1932 PC 118 and Subhanna v. Subhanna . Reference may be made to Ex. 1. It was on 5-12-1975, that the Registrar recommended the reversion of the plaintiff-respondent to the post of stenographer Gr. I On 6-12-1975, the Vice-Chancellor ordered that Shri Melwani be reverted to the post of Stenographer Gr. I. Ex. 7, the order of reversion dated 9-12-1975 does not make any reference to these proceedings as the order is signed by the Registrar.