- (1.) S. H. A. Raza and Bhagwan Din JJ. Heard Sri V. S. Dwivedi, learn Counsel appearing for the petitioners a: Sri Nurul Huda, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respodents.
(2.) KENDRIYA Hindi Shikshan Mandal/sansthan, which is a body for the promotion, advancement and spread Hindi language, issued an advertiseme in the month of November, 1988 for the selection on the post of Professor, Read Lecturer etc. The advertisement indication that there were four clear vacancies on the post of Reader and two were on the lea-vacancies. One post of Reader in Shiksha Shastra was in clear vacancy. Two posts Lecturer in Bhasha Vigyan were in clear vacancies and four were in leave vacancies In pursuance of the said advertisement the petitioner No. 1 was appointed on the post of Reader (Uprayukta) Hindi Bhasl Vigyan. The order indicated that the said appointment was temporary in nature, in asmuch as, it was on leave vacancy. The petitioners No. 2, 3 and 4 were also a] pointed as Lecturers on temporary bas on leave vacancies. The petitioner No. was appointed as Research Assistant 1 the Director/secretary of the Mandal on temporary vacancy on a leave vacancy. In all the appointments, it was indicated the such appointment would last till 31-5-1989 and thereafter the appointment shall come to an end. It was further indicated in the appointment orders that eve during that period, their services could be terminated without giving any notice, was also mentioned in the appointment letters that whenever the persons on leave would join, the services of the petitioners would automatically stand terminated. It seems that the petitioners continued to perform their duties as Lecturers till 3-8-1993 when their services were terminated. Mr. V S. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioners stressed that the petitioners were not appointed on leave vacancies, but they were appointed on substantive vacancies and the substantial that contention, it was submitted that the respondent-Sansthan adopted the same procedure, for appointment which is fol lowed in the case of appointments on sub stantive vacancies, meaning thereby; that the petitioners were asked to appear before a duly constituted Selection Com mittee. The Selection Committee inter viewed the petitioners and ap pointed/promoted the petitioners No. 1,2, 3 and 4 and the appointments were ap proved by the Governing Council in its meeting held on 17-8-1989.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner No. 1 was already working as a Lecturer. In pursuance of the appoint ment letter dated 30-10-1989, he was ap pointed/promoted as Reader. The petitioners No. 2,3 and 4 were also work ing in the Sansthan as Research Assistants or in any other capacity and they were appointed as Lecturers on various dates, in the year 1989 and only the petitioner No. 5, who was appointed as a Research Assistant, was not working in any capacity under Hindi Shikshan Mandal, Agra. In paragraph 22 of the petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner No. 5 that she was appointed on the post of Research Assistant, which was held by one Dr. Manju Lata Sharma and on her going on leave, the petitioner No. 5 was ap pointed, but later on Dr. Manju Lata Shar ma resigned from her services and hence the appointment of the petitioner No. 5 would be deemed to be in a substantive vacancy. 8. On January 13, 1993, the petitioners submitted a representation to Sri Shanker Dayal Singh, who at the relevant time, was the Vice-President of Kendriya Hindi Shikshan Mandal, Agra, for regularisation of their services. In the said representation, the petitioners stated that they had been working on the leave vacancies since the last three years. They lad come to know that the Staff Inspection Unit had recommended to reduce the strength of the teaching staff in Hindi shikshan Mandal and in pursuance of the said report, it was being proposed to terminate the services of the petitioners. In heir representation, they stated that some of the posts are still vacant and some of the posts would fall vacant very soon and as he petitioners have completed three rears' service, their services may be egularised. 8. On this representation, the Registrar of the Mandal sent a letter to the petitioners that their representation would come up for consideration as soon as the report of the Staff Inspection Unit would be received by the Sansthan/mandal. A detailed report was also given by the office, wherein, it has been indicated that the petitioners have worked for about three or three and half years. The report stated that after the implementation of the report of the Staff Inspection Unit, it would not be possible to retain the petitioners on their posts, as the Staff In spection Unit has reduced one post of Professor, three posts of Reader, 20 posts of Lecturers and 11 posts of Research As sistant. 9. The representation of the petitioners alongwith the office report came up for consideration before a meet ing of the Governing Council of the Shik shan Mandal held on 22-3-1993, which was presided over by Sri Arjun Singh, the then Minister for Human Resources. 10. In pursuance of the Resolution passed by the Governing Council, the ser vices of the petitioners were terminated. The order of termination indicated that in pursuance of the Resolution passed on 22- 3-1993, the services of the petitioners were terminated. 11. It was vehemently urged that as the order of termination indicates that it was issued in pursuance of the Resolution passed by the Governing Council in its meeting dated 22-3-1993, but no such resolution was ever passed. In that regard, great reliance was placed on the affidavit of Dr. Mahavir Saran Jain. The said af fidavit was filed to indicate, as to what business the Sansthan had transacted in the meeting of the Governing Council of the Sansthan dated 22-3-1993 pertaining to the agenda in question. It was stated that the minutes of the meeting of the use of the Chairman/minister for Human Resources and Development were recorded by the officers of the Ministry. The Secretary/director of the Mandal prepared the draft of the minutes on the basis of the record available in the Sansthan. In said draft was submitted to Dr. Shanker Dayal Singh who also signed the minutes. Thereafter, it was submitted for the approval of the Chairman of the Mandal. The draft, which was submitted to the Private Secretary to Chairman/mini ster for Human Resources, has been an nexed as Annexure-1 to that affidavit wherein it was indicated at item No. 22 that after considering the Staff Inspection Unit report in depth, the Minister for Human Resources expressed a view that the review of the working of the said Sansthan should be carried on by a academic body, instead of Staff Inspection Unit. At item No. 14, it is mentioned in the draft minutes that the Governing Council resolved that the decision on Staff Inspec tion Unit report would be taken after the report of the Committee. 12. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit failed by Dr. Mahavir Saran Jain that after recording of the decisions taken in the meeting held on 22-3-1993. The Deputy Education Advisor (Lan guages) submitted the modified draft of the minutes for approval of the Chairman of the Mandal to the Private Secretary of the Hon'ble Minister on 7-6-1993. The Private Secretary submitted the said draft to the Chairman/minister for Human Resources. The Chairman approved the minutes of the meeting which is on the file of the Ministry. Thereafter, the approved Minutes were sent to Hindi Shikshan Mandal, Agra for necessary action by the desk official of the Ministry for Human Resources (Language Division) on 19- 7-1993 and the minutes, which were ap proved, were circulated to all the Mem bers of the Governing Council, which were duly confirmed in the meeting of the Governing Council on 30-3-1994, mean ing thereby that minutes of the meeting held on 22-3-1993, were duly confirmed by the meeting of the Governing Council held on 30-3-1994, according to which the said minutes, which were signed by the Minister and duly approved by the Governing Council, the Governing Coun cil resolved in its meeting held on 22-3-1993 to terminate the services of the petitioners. 13. Frank Shackleton in Chapter 15 under the heading "minutes" of the Law and Practice of Meetings has indicated: "minutes as a rule show only the decisions recorded at a meeting, preceded possibly by a short narration dealing with the essential points leading up to the decision. If reports are sub mitted to the meetings, (reports of committee, etc.), it is not usual to set out in extenso the full report, a reference in the minute by which the report can be identified will usually satisfy the most exacting Chairman. " It is further indicated in the said Chapter 15: "when minutes are signed by the Chair man of the meeting, or the next succeeding meeting, they are prima facie evidence of the proceedings thereat and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be valid until the contrary is proved. The Chairman of a meeting has prima facie authority to decide all incidental questions which arise at the meeting and an entry by him in the minute book of the result of a poll, or of his decision of all such questions, although not con clusive, is prima facie evidence of that result and the onus of displacing that evidence is thrown on those who impeach the entry. " "where the Chairman made an entry in the minute book that a resolution had been confirmed, the Court, in the absence of evidence that the votes were improperly disallowed, declined to question the decision of the Chair man. " Articles do, however, sometimes provide that minutes shall be conclusive evidence of the proceedings. Such was the form of an article in Belts v. Macnaghten (see p. 29) and in the later case of Kerrs. v. John Mottram Ltd. (see p. 153 ). It was further indicated at page 112. CONFIRMATIOn "decisions once arrived at do not need confirmation and the practice adopted by some authorities of "confirming" minutes has no legal significance. The word "confirm" sometimes means "verify"; it is commonly used in that sense at meetings of public bodies, who confirm the minutes of their last meeting, not meaning thereby that they give them force, but merely that they declare them accurate. " "it is usual to submit the minutes to the Chairman at the same or subsequent meeting for signature. If they have not been previously circulated he will ask the Secretary to read them and if the meeting is of opinion that they are a correct record of the proceedings he will sign them. The Chairman who signs at the next suc ceeding meeting need not necessarily have been present at the meeting of which the minutes are a record. If they have previously been circulated he will often sign them without having them read if the meeting so agrees. His action in signing them as merely to record that they are a correct record of the business transacted. If there should be an error in them of an immaterial kind, such a mis-spelt word or a clerical error, the alteration could be made by the Chairman and initialed. If, however, a material point is omitted, it is competent for a member at any time to prove at law the inaccuracy of minutes and have the resolutions set aside. " "there may, however, be occasions, where the Chairman, although having no reason to question the accuracy of the record, refuses to sign the minutes. In such cases a record should be made in the minutes to the effect that the minutes of the previous meeting were correct. At a vestry meeting it was the usual proce dure to read over, at the next meeting, the resolutions of the preceding one; and to confirm or rescind them. At the second meeting there was considerable diversity of opinion as to the votes admitted at the first meeting, but judg ment was to the effect that there was no neces sity for the confirmation of the second vestry of what was legally done at the first. If the first was legal vestry the election thereat was legal. " 14. It is well settled principle of laws of meeting that the minutes of the meeting is nothing but what has been discussed and resolved in the meeting and approved in the next meeting, then it would be an authentic version of what had transpired in the meeting. The draft of the minutes, which was heavily relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was neither signed by the Minister for Human Resources nor it was circulated among the members of the Governing Council or ap proved by the Governing Council in the next meeting. Hence, the contention that the Governing Council had not resolved to terminate the services of the petitioners is totally misconceived. 15. The contention that the petitioners were appointed on substantive vacancies instead of leave vacancies, is un tenable in view of the advertisement in pursuance of which the applications were invited for selection, which clearly indi cated that the selection would be made on certain posts, which had fallen vacant due to leave vacancy. The appointment letters itself indicated that the petitioners were appointed on leave vacancies. In their rep resentation to the Vice-Chairman dated 13-1-1997 they clearly indicated that they were appointed on leave vacancies and their services be regularised. The conten tion of the petitioners that they have men tioned in their representation that they were appointed on leave vacancies only for the reason that the appointment letters itself indicated as such. Hence such admis sion, which is based on hire and fire rule should not be read as the admission on the part of the petitioners. No doubt when a person seeks any appointment, he is not in a position to dictate his own terms and had to succum to the pressure exerted by the employer who dictates the terms. In such a situation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of the cases pertaining to Industrial workers have ruled that such admission on the part of a workman should not be read against him. In the present case, which is before us, we are not dealing with il literate, ignorant and ill-informed in dustrial workers. The petitioners are Post graduate, some of whom have obtained Ph. D. degrees and hence it cannot be said that they had no choice except to accept the terms dictated by the employer. What pressure was exerted upon the petitioners and what prevented them from stating in their representation before the Vice-Chairman by mentioning that they were appointed temporarily on leave vacancies. They themselves have stated this thing. They are not such ignorant people who could be misled by the Director/secretary of the Mandal. Hence the contention that the appointments were made on substan tive vacancies is falsified by the repre sentation made by the petitioners them selves and they cannot be permitted to resile from that position which they had taken earlier. 16. The contention that the proce dures, which were adopted by the Mandal, were for the selection on the substantive posts, is also misconceived, inasmuch as, even though that procedure for appoint ment would not convert such appointment on substantive posts. 17. But there is another aspect, which has appealed to us. Admittedly, the petitioners have been working as Readers, Lecturers and Research Assistants respec tively since September/october, 1989 till now; as this Court has stayed the opera tion of the termination orders at the time of the filing of the writ petition. The Staff Inspection Unit report pertains to the year 1993. Much water has flown since then. During all this period, some of the Profes sors, Readers, Lecturers and Research As sistants might have been retired and the petitioners could have been appointed in accordance with the Rules if there would have been vacancies. Although it has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Mandal that the petitioners cannot claim a lien on the post considering the nature of appointment as they were appointed on leave vacancies and after the report of Staff Inspection Unit, the strength had been reduced. Hence, their services cannot be regularised, but he conceded that if there would be vacancy and the same would be advertised, the petitioners would be con sidered for appointment on substantive post in accordance with Rules. Their past experience would also be taken into ac count by the Selection Committee. 18. As we have indicated earlier, petitioners No. 1 to 4 were already work ing on substantive post before the present appointments and it has been conceded by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Sansthan that they would be allowed to work on their substantive post but they cannot be permitted to work on the post which they were holding by promotion. From the side of the petitioners, it has been asserted that some of the Lecturers, who had gone on leave, have not yet returned and the post held by them still subsists on which their services can be regularised. We are of the view, as to whether the services of the petitioners can be regularised or not depends on the Governing Council, subject to the availability of the post. Hence, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue any such direction. But, we provide that in case the vacancy exists, considering the past ex perience of the petitioners, their cases may be considered by the Governing Council for regularisation. As far as petitioner No. 5 is concerned, we provide that if the post upon which she has been working still sub sists or any vacancy exists, she may be allowed to continue till the regular selection would be made. 19. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;