Anjani Kumar, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24th May, 1993, passed by the Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') whereby representation of one Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla Junior Clerk under Section 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Evam Audyogik Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') has been allowed and the order dated 18th December, 1991, passed by the University passed in favour of the petitioner has been quashed.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present dispute, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on temporary basis by the order dated 18th August, 1981, issued by the Director of University. THE aforesaid order shows that the Vice-Chancellor appointed petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-320 and terms and conditions set out in the order and condition No. (iv) thereof reads as under : "(iv) Your services are liable to termination at any time without assigning any reason after giving proper notice as per rules." By the order dated 16th November, 1981, the petitioner was informed that his services are no longer required and he will be paid one month's salary in lieu of one month notice which he may collect from the Professor and Head of Department of Crop Physiology and Bio-Chemistry. Against this order petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6986 of 1982 before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding University to continue to pay salary from November, 1981, onwards. On 11th June, 1982, this Court passed interim mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary or to show-cause. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the University informing that by the order dated 16th November, 1981, the petitioner has been terminated and therefore, there was no occasion for payment of salary. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 18th August, 1982. The petitioner thereafter represented his matter before the Board of Management of the University under Statute 3 (d) (ii) (Chapter XXI) of the Statutes of the University (hereinafter to referred to as the 'Statute') praying for recall of the order dated 16th November, 1981. The Board of Management in its meeting dated 30th June, 1984 considered the aforesaid representation and resolved that a fresh appointment may be given to the petitioner and he may be placed far away from the Head Office like, Bundelkhand etc. Consequently University issued an order dated 17th July, 1984 appointing petitioner on the post of Store-Keeper-Cum-Clerk under the K.V.K. Scheme at Jhansi. The letter of appointment contains the condition that his appointment is terminable at any time without assigning any reason after giving notice as per rules. It also provided that in case offer was acceptable on the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the petitioner may report for duty to the Director (Extension) within 15 days. The petitioner un-conditionally accepted the aforesaid offer and joined his duties pursuant to the appointment letter dated 17th July, 1984. He continued to work but after a few years, made a representation before the Chancellor of the University under Section 23 of the Act against order dated 16th November, 1981, resolution dated 30th June, 1984 of the Board of Management and fresh appointment order dated 17th July, 1984 contending that he was illegally terminated therefore, instead of treating him a fresh appointee, he should have been treated to have been reinstated with full backwages and other consequential relief. The Chancellor by the order dated 26th May, 1990, rejected representation of the petitioner on the ground that it was not maintainable since he could file a review petition before the Board of Management under Statute 3 (d) (ii) (Chapter XXI) of the Statutes of the University. Accordingly the petitioner filed a review petition before the Board of Management dated 25th June, 1990. The Estate and Administrative Officer of the University put up a note before the Board of Management dated 14th September, 1991, mentioning the factual position and observing that appropriate orders may be passed on review petition. The Board of Management in its meeting dated 14th September, 1991 considered the review petition and approved the proposal. The University issued the order dated 18th December, 1991 providing that in continuation of his earlier services, the petitioner is reinstated with effect from 17th November, 1981 and would be entitled to the salary with effect from 17th November, 1981 to 16th July, 1984 and all other benefits. The petitioner was directed to be paid salary for the intervening period against the vacant post of Typist in the Horticulture Research Station, Hazratpur Scheme carried out by the University. Sri Shukla who was working as Junior Clerk in the University being adversely affected by the order dated 18th December, 1991, filed a representation dated 17th June, 1992 before the Chancellor under Section 23 of the Act which has been allowed by the Chancellor vide order dated 24th May, 1993, impugned in the present writ petition. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chancellor erred in law by observing that the writ petition against the order of termination dated 16th November, 1981, had already been dismissed on 18th August, 1982, it was not open to the University to recall that order and treating the petitioner as has continued in service which has the effect of making termination order dated 16th November, 1981 non est. He further contended that since he was reinstated by the order of Board of Management there was no occasion for the Chancellor to nullify that order only on the basis that against the order of termination, Writ Petition No. 6986 of 1982 was already dismissed. He further contended that before the University, the respondent No. 3 was not a party at any stage either when the petitioner was terminated or when he was appointed afresh or when the order of reinstatement was passed by the auth?rities of the University and therefore, at the instance of respondent No. 3, representation under Section 23 of the Act could not have been entertained by the Chancellor. Hence, the order impugned is illegal and without jurisdiction. Sri R. G. Padia, representing the Chancellor supported the order passed by the Chancellor and contended that the petitioner having been appointed afresh pursuant to the order dated 17th July, 1984, it was not open to him to re-agitate the issue after such a long time and the entire exercise at the behest of the University was not in conformity to the statutory provisions, therefore, the order of the Chancellor is absolutely correct.;