BARIN GHOSH, C.J. -
(1.) REFUSAL to appoint the petitioner as Director Extension is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The same has been communicated by the Chief Personnel Officer by a letter dated 9th June, 2012. On an earlier occasion, this Court directed consideration of the representation made by the petitioner for appointing him as Director Extension. The Court directed the Vice Chancellor of the University to decide the said representation. The order impugned though has been passed by the Chief Personnel Officer, but the same has been passed for the Vice Chancellor. As would be evident from the impugned order, the basic reason for not appointing the petitioner as Director Extension was the fact that prior to 13th January, 2006, petitioner was holding the charge of Joint Director Extension, Kumaon Region. Petitioner, by a letter dated 20th January, 2006, showed his inability to perform the duties of Joint Director Extension, Kumaon Region on account of diabetic problems and poor health. He, thus, requested, for his transfer to main campus. The request of the petitioner was considered and he was transferred to the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture and, accordingly, he joined the said Department on 6th February, 2006. Therefore, it has been held out that when the petitioner expressed his inability to discharge the duties of Joint Director Extension, Kumaon Region, in the absence of showing something in the representation that his inability, as was prevalent in 2006, has been overcome with adequate proof in support thereof, there was nothing wrong in proceeding to hold that the petitioner still has the same disability or difficulty in discharging the duties of Director Extension.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner expressed his inability to discharge the duties of Joint Director Extension, Kumaon Region, since, in order to discharge such duties, petitioner was to be posted outside the main campus. The post of Director Extension, as is available, is within the main campus and there would be no difficulty for the petitioner to discharge the duties attached to the post of Director Extension within the main campus. If the reason was not to discharge the duties attached to a post available outside the main campus, it was well within the petitioner to say so. He did not do so. Instead, he projected his inability on health ground to discharge the duties attached to the said post. Therefore, while seeking to be appointed as Director, it ought to have had been shown by the petitioner that he has overcome his disability. He did not do so. In the writ petition also, he has not made any effort to bring on record any medical certificate showing that the petitioner is free from diabetic problems and his poor health, as was prevalent in 2006, although an averment to that effect has been made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to an order of the Chancellor dated 26th April, 2010, whereby and under, the Chancellor had directed the University to appoint the senior most Professor working in the Department of Horticulture as the Director Extension. It was submitted that the petitioner is the senior most Professor in the Department of Horticulture and, accordingly, in terms of the directions contained in the said order of Chancellor dated 26th April, 2010, petitioner alone is entitled to be appointed as Director Extension. The fact remains that on 26th April, 2010, petitioner was not working in the Department of Horticulture. The order dated 26th April, 2010, therefore, did not apply to the petitioner. On 26th April, 2010, petitioner was on deputation and was working in some other capacity. The order dated 26th April, 2010 did not create any right or interest in favour of the petitioner.
In any event, petitioner is due to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of July 2012. In those circumstances, occasion of appointing petitioner as Director Extension, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not arise.
(3.) WE, accordingly, close the matter and dismiss the writ petition.
After we passed this order, learned counsel for the petitioner stood up and said that he must be permitted to argue his case and, accordingly, made a representation that his arguments have not been considered. We permitted him to re-argue the case altogether and de novo. He did so. Despite hearing our mind, while dictating the order in the Court, he could not bring to our notice one single infirmity in the order that we had passed already. Learned counsel has wasted more than twenty minutes of the Court's time. We, accordingly, impose costs of Rs. 20,000/-, to be deposited with Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authroity, while dismissing this writ petition.;