- (1.) SINCE the pleadings are complete, as requested by learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 1. 3. 2007 whereby the;registrar, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Viswavidyalaya, Chitrakoot (hereinafter referred to as the "university") has informed the petitioner that his services would come to an end on 31. 3. 2007, the petitioner, Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order. He has also challenged the order dated 31. 3. 2007, where by he was informed that since the post on which he was working has abol ished, the petitioner's services are no more required by the University. He has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him regular salary and arrears with interest and other consequential benefits. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, as stated in the writ petition, are that the University has been established under UP. Act No. 32 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") in private sector for providing education to handicapped persons. It imparts higher education namely B. A. and M. A. courses in various subjects like, Philosophy, Hindi, Sanskrit, English, History Culture and Archaeology, Sociology, Drawing and Painting, Music and Political Science. It is a residential University and regular classes are conducted in all the said sub jects. An advertisement was published on 6. 12. 2002 and 3. 7. 2004 advertising post of Lecturer in Political Science under Faculty of Social Science besides other posts. The petitioner applied and was selected. Vide appointment letter dated 4. 12. 2004 he was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Political Science in the Faculty of Social Science in the pay scale of Rs. 8. 000/- to 13. 500/ -. The letter of appointment is on record as Annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said letter of appointment the petitioner joined his services and was continuously discharging his duties as Lecturer, (Political Science) in the Faculty of Social Science in the University. It is said that all of sudden the impugned order has been passed whereby he has been informed that the post on which he was working was sanctioned under Xth five year plan which is going to expire on 31. 3. 2007 and, therefore, his services would stand terminated on 31. 3. 2007. It is contended that the advertisement did not mention that the post was to continue only up to 31. 3. 2007 or was created under five year plan and, therefore, termination of services treating the said post under Xth five year plan is wholly arbitrary. It is further contended that after expiry of Xth five year plan, as required under Section 5 (2) of the Act, the approved teaching staff liability was to be taken over by the State Government or the Ex ecutive Council of the University. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that the post would lapse on the expiry of Xth five year plan causing termination of the peti tioner. It is also said that though the University is unaided but it receive financial assistance from University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "ugc") and other bodies and authorities like State Government, private bodies etc. The Department of Political Science is still continuing hence it is inconceivable that only post which was being occupied by the petitioner is abolished justifying his termination, hence, it is evident that his termination is arbitrary. The order dated 31. 3. 2007 has been challenged on the ground that it is wholly dishonest, fraudu lent and mala fide exercise of power on the part of the respondents. The petitioner has been singled out and the action of the University is illegal being hit by Articles 14,19 (1) (g)and21 of the Constitution of India. It is also said that in other depart ments the teachers are still working since students are there and, therefore, termination of petitioner individually is illegal and bad. The respondent, University has filed its counter affidavit as well as supple mentary counter affidavit. The case of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 is that the University is a private body, therefore, writ petition under Article 12 of the Consti tution is not maintainable. On merits, it is said that the University had taken a decision to abolish the post of Lecturers in the Department of Political Science and Philosophy and for the said purpose, letter dated 28. 3. 2007 has been issued by the Vice Chancellor communicating decision of Board of Governors to Regis trar, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the "soci ety") which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act and is estab lished the said University. The aforesaid decision of the Board of Governors of University has been approved by the Society, as evident from its letter dated 28. 3. 2007 (Annexure-CA-2-to the counter affidavit ). The petitioner was appointed under the Scheme of UGC sanctioned under Xth five year plan and the said ap pointment was to continue till the life of the said plan i. e. 31. 3. 2007. The aforesaid fact was clearly mentioned in the appointment letter of the petitioner. It was also mentioned therein that the post may likely to continue depending upon the avail ability of the post and performance of the candidate. It is said that the appoint ment of the petitioner was more in the nature of contract depending upon certain terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the letter of appointment. He was never appointed on a permanent post nor he has a right to continue on the post of Lecturer when the post itself stood abolished after 31. 3. 2007. The notice dated 1. 3. 2007 was served upon the petitioner in the similar manner as it was served upon other Lecturers appointed under the posts created under Xth five year plan and the petitioner has not been singled out for the said purpose. Once the termi nation of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with the terms and condi tions of his appointment, he cannot raise any objection thereagainst and the writ petition challenging the order of termination, therefore, is clearly misconceived. It is said that the University is neither a Central University nor Deemed University nor a State University but is a private University, though is established under the Act. It is said that with reference to para 5 (Hi) of the guidelines framed by the UGC for providing financial assistance to various Universities the matter was con sidered by the UGC itself in view of the fact that various Universities were facing difficulty in obtaining assistance from the respective State Governments regard ing taking over liability of the posts after the plan is over and vide letter dated 29. 3. 2004 (Annexure-CA-1), UGC gave three options to such Universities for fill ing up the post, approved during Xth five year plan, to safeguard the interest of the institution which are as under: "1. Assurance may be obtained from the State Government for taking over the liability of these posts after tenth plan period. Or 2. Assurance may be given by the University through a resolution of the Executive Council to bear the burden of these posts after tenth plan Or 3. Appointment shall be made on contractual basis. " It also provides that the University may opt for any of the above three options for filling up the post. In case of contractual appointments also UGC provided that the University shall follow the requisite qualifications etc. of the posts as provided under UGC regulations. It is said that vide letter dated 31. 3. 2007, the University has informed UGC also about abolition of post held by the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner, in his rejoinder affidavit, has said that on the one hand the University has said that Xth five year plan is over but on the other hand it has applied for financial assistance from UGC in Xlth five year plan also. It is also said that the University is taking shifting stand and sometimes it says that the Depart ment of Political Science has been abolished and sometimes it says that only post of Lecturer in Department of Political Science has been abolished showing that they themselves are not clear regarding the fact as to whether the depart ment is continuing or the post of Lecturer is continuing and, therefore, no reliance has been placed on such defence. Since there was no mention in the advertise ment pursuant whereto the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Lecturer that it is a post sanctioned in Xth five year plan, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to be appointed for limited period and cannot be terminated in the manner the impugned order has been passed. THE appointment of the peti tioner was on probation showing that it was substantive appointment and, there fore, he cannot be terminated. THE letters filed by the respondents alongwith the counter affidavit with respect to abolition of post are manufactured documents and cannot be relied upon. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that he was ap pointed on probation after a regular selection on the post of Assistant Professor, and he has already completed the period of probation, 'therefore, his services could not have been terminated by means of the impugned order and the same is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. He further contended that since in the adver tisement, pursuant to which he had applied and was selected, there was no mention of the fact that the post in question was sanctioned in Xth five year plan and has limited If the respondents cannot subsequently claim that the said post was a planned post and would come to an end on a particular date when the said plan would end. Referring to the fact that the students were still continuing education in the Department of Political Science and are pursuing their courses in the University, it is said that it is incorrect to suggest that there is no require ment of a teacher in the Department of Political Science till the existing students are pursuing their course and, therefore, termination of petitioner's services on 31. 3. 2007 is illegal.;