- (1.) R. Dayal, J. By this writ petition, petitioner, Atik Ahmad, has sought a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29-9-1995 passed by respondent No. 1 and also a direction commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Artist-cum- photographer and to pay him his regular monthly salary for the said post.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was granted appointment on daily- wages for imparting instruction of study in Fine Arts and Craft, vide order dated 25-8-1987 of Director of Administration and Monitoring, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology. He continued in that capacity till 13-12-1992 without any break. By an order dated 13-12-1992, Annexure 3 to the writ petition, he was appointed on that post under Chapter XIII (10) (a) (b) of the Statutes of the University. The order clearly provides that the services of the petitioner would be terminable at any time without issuing any show cause notice. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 16-7-1994 (Annexure No. 9) issued from the office of Chancellor of the University forwarding there with a copy of a representation filed by one Rakesh Kumar. The petitioner submitted a reply to that notice which is Annexure No. 10. Vide order dated 29-9- 1995, Annexure 11, the appointment of the petitioner was annulled by the Chancellor on the ground that the appointment had been made contrary to Chapter XIII para (3j of the Statutes, which provides that no selection for any appointment under the Statutes shall be made except after advertise ment of the vacancy in at least three newspapers having adequate circulation in the country. Admittedly, no advertisement had been issued in respect of the appointment which was annulled subsequently by the Chancellor vide Annexure 11.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid para applies only to appointment of staff and since by Annexure 3 the peti tioner was not initially appointed, as he had already been working on daily wages, this was a case of regularisation. Further, if is submitted that since there is no prohibition in the statutes for regularisation of services, the order dated 1?-12-1992 is valid. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that a perusal of the order dated 13- 12-1992 clearly shows that this was, a case of appointment and since there is no provision under the rules for regularisation, this could not be a case other than of appointais0t. It is, further submitted that if the contention of the petitioner is upheld, the provisions of Chapter XIII para (3) of the Statutes would be rendered nugatory.;