- (1.) The petitioner joined the service of the Punjab Agricultural University on November 23, 1965, as a Sports Assistant. He was appointed to that post by the Vice-Chancellor of the University by letter dated November 2, 1965, a copy of which is Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. He was to be paid a consolidated pay in the scale of Rs. 250-15-40-20-500 with effect from the date he resumed duty. According to the statutes of the university framed under Section 29(q) of the Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1961 , he was to be on probation for a period of two years, which could be extended to a period of two years, which could be extended to a period not exceeding three years in all. The petitioner successfully completed his period of probation of two years on November 22, 1967, and a letter to this effect was issued by the Deputy Director, Students Welfare, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, on February 9, 196. His services were terminated with effect from October 15, 1970 by the Vice-Chancellor as "no longer required." It was directed in the order that 'he shall be paid one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice required under the Rules of the University, and the terms and conditions of his appointment." The petitioner then filed the present petition for the quashing of that order on October 17, 1970. The petition was admitted on October 20, 1970. The returns have been filed by the Registrar of the Punjab Agricultural University and by respondent 4, Shri Prithipal Singh, Deputy Director, Students' Welfare, Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana. Respondent No. 4 has supported the petitioner while the return filed by the Registrar of the University, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, strongly opposes the petition. No return has been filed by respondent No. 3.
(2.) The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after satisfactory completion of his period of probation on November 22, 1967, the petitioner should be deemed to have been confirmed, in accordance with Rule 8 contained in Chapter VII of the Punjab Agricultural University Act and Statutes 1967-68. This chapter relates to the number, qualifications, emoluments and other conditions of service of teachers of the University and it is admitted that the petitioner was a teacher in the University. Rule 8 relates to probation while Rule 20 relates to resignation or termination of services. These rules are the same as rules 7 and 19 in Chapter VI, which relates to the employees of the University other than teachers. According to the Rule relating to probation, the petitioner was entitled to confirmation if there was a permanent vacancy against which he could be confirmed, but if he was holding a temporary post, he could not be considered for confirmation in the service, even on satisfactory completion of the period of his probation, unless the post of which he had been appointed subsequently became the permanent post. The case pleaded by the petitioner is supported by respondent No. 4 that the post of Sports Assistant to which the petitioner had been appointed in November, 1965, was a permanent post and, therefore, on satisfactory completion of the period of probation he was entitled to be confirmed in that post and since he was allowed his due increments in 1968 and 1969, he should be deemed to have been confirmed in terms of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, 1968 SLR 247. In support of his plea that he had been appointed to a permanent post on probation the petitioner seeks to refer to the budgets of the University and the assertion to that effect made by respondent No. 4 in his affidavit filed by way of return. The assertions of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are of on use in the absence of any documentary evidence. The description of the post in the budgets also does not decide the matter. The decision has to be taken by the Board of Management of the University and no document has been referred to by the petitioner to prove that the post of Sports Assistant to which he had been appointed was a permanent post. On behalf of the University, a copy of the note taken into consideration while deciding 'Item No. 30 : Declaration of permanent posts in the Punjab Agricultural University-Confirmation of employee's has been filed, which reads as under :- "At present all the teaching and non-teaching posts of the Punjab Agricultural University, as provided in the University Budget, area temporary. this University has been making appointments on regular basis since its inception in 1962. The appointees are placed on probation for period of two years in accordance with the provision contained in clause 7 of Part A and Clause 8 of Part B of the Statute pertaining to the conditions of the service of University employees. These rules provide that 'on satisfactory completion of the period of probation of an employee, the Appointing Authority shall confirm such employees' against a permanent post. The University Statutes, therefore, envisage permanent cadre (s) in the University against which such employees are to be considered for confirmation. However, the confirmation of the employees has not been possibly in absence of any permanent post in the University. The employees of the Punjab Agricultural University have been representing for confirmation. In order to examine the case in regard to the number of posts to be made permanent, the Vice-Chancellor had constituted different committees for their recommendations. The consensus of the opinion of the committees was to declare the posts provided in the ordinary budget and other State non-plan scheme (Agricultural & Veterinary) as permanent. The Vice Chancellor considered the recommendations of these committees and decided that only those posts which existed on 1st March, 1967 and which are present stand provided under non-plan schemes of Punjab and Himachal regions be included in the proposal. The details of posts at present provided under non-plan schemes are on pages 1 to 233 and 340 of the University budget estimates 1970-71 (copy placed below). However, these posts include a large number of temporary posts which were created on or after 1st April, 1967 which are proposed to be excluded from the proposal. The details of these new posts, created exclusively for Punjab and Himachal Pradesh regions, are being worked out and the same Will be placed before the committee at the time of meeting. Almost all these posts have been in existence for the last seven years and this staff is the barest minimum for running these Colleges. It is, therefore, proposed that these posts may be declared as permanent establishment. The proposal involves no additional liability. The posts provided on plan side have not been considered for permanency as these posts were provided only recently in the IV Plan Schemes. The posts provided under the research schemes financed by the ICAR. PL-480, Ford Foundation and other Centrally sponsored agencies are purely temporary and for a limited period. As such, posts provided under these schemes have also not been included in the proposal. The matter is therefore, placed before the Finance Committee for consideration and recommending it to the Board of Management for approval." This note was considered by the Finance Committee on April 28, 1970, which made the following recommendation :- "The Finance Committee observe that the benefit which will accrue to the employees on their confirmation in the University is the grant of 3 month's notice instead of one month's notice in the case of temporary employees in case it is lawfully established that the services of a particular employee can be dispensed with. Therefore, the Finance Committee recommends that all non-plan posts which have figured in the university budget since 1965-66 and have figured in the university budget since 1956-66 and have continued after 2nd February, 1970 in the Punjab Agricultural University be declared permanent." The note reproduced above along with the recommendation of the Finance Committee was considered by the Board of Management of the University in its meeting held on May 15, 1970, and the following decision was recorded :- "The Board accepts the recommendations of the Finance Committee with the modification that all non-plan posts which have figured in the University budget since 1966-67 and have continued after 2nd February, 1970 in the Punjab Agricultural University shall be declared permanent." From this decision of the Board of Management and the note on the subject, it is abundantly clear that the post to which the petitioner had been appointed was not a permanent post in 1965, but it was sought to be made permanent as a result of the decision taken by the Board of Management on May 15, 1970. The petitioner could not, therefore, be considered for confirmation till the post was made permanent even if he had satisfactorily completed his period of probation. There is, therefore, no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed to a permanent post right from the beginning of his service and that on satisfactory completion of his period of probation, he should be deemed to have been confirmed with effect from November 22, 1967, in terms of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh's case .
(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in any case the post of which the petitioner had been appointed in 1965 should be deemed to have been made permanent with effect from May 15, 1970, and with effect from that date he should be deemed to have been confirmed in that post. The reply to this submission is that the Board of Management only decided to declare permanent all non-plan posts which had figured in the University budgets since 1966-67 and had continued till after 2nd February 1970, but did not make them permanent with effect from May 15, 1970. It is not disputed that the post which was held by the petitioner was a non-plan post and covered by this decision of the Board of Management, but it is submitted that no posts have yet been declared permanent because the matter is being processed and the information is being collected. In support of this submission, a copy of the letter from the Dean College of Agriculture, Ludhiana, to the Deputy Director, Students Welfare, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, dated January 5, 1971, on the subject of declaration of permanent posts in the Punjab Agricultural University has been produced, which reads as under :- "Reference : Your Memo No. 9966/70, dated 7th/9th December, 1970. The posts pertaining to the non-plan teaching schemes of this College which existed in the University budget for the year 1966-67 and have continued after 2nd February 1970, are proposed to be made permanent. For details please see Annexure 'A' enclosed. The post included in Annexure 'A' are not permanent as yet." In Annexure 'A' to this letter, three posts of Sports Assistants are mentioned, which were being proposed to be made permanent. One of these posts relates to the petitioner. It has also been stated in the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University by way of return to the writ petition that the post held by the petitioner has not so far been made permanent and it had been temporary throughout and, therefore, the petitioner was never confirmed, nor could be considered for confirmation. In view of the documents discussed above, there is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents and it has to be held that on October 15, 1970, when the services of the petitioner were terminated, he was holding a temporary post and not a permanent t one. He was, thus, a non-confined temporary employee and his services could be terminated on giving him one month's notice or by paying him one month's salary in lieu of notice according to Statute 19(3) contained in Chapter VI of the Punjab Agricultural University Act and Statutes 1967-68, which Statute applies to the petitioner as a teacher of the University by virtue of Statute 20 in Chapter VII of the same book. The petitioner was, therefore, relieved of his service and he can have no grievance. In view of these facts, the petitioner cannot derive any assistance from the judgment of Jagjit Singh, J., of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 749 of 1968, Mangat Singh v. Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, decided on November 17, 1970. In that case the order of confirmation of the petitioner had been passed but was not communicated to him and on that basis it was pleaded that he was not a confirmed employee. That plea was repelled on the ground that the failure to perform a ministerial Act did not obliterate the order of confirmation passed on the record of the Institute and recorded in the service book of the petitioner. In the instant case no order of confirmation of the petitioner was ever passed and, therefore, the judgment is distinguishable.;