- (1.) The petitioner is a doctor. He was appointed as Assistant Professor on ad hoc basis in the Department of Psychiatry at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (respondent) ('Institute' - for short) on 6.3.2000 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, in response to an advertisement for filling up the post of Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in the respondent-Institute on regular basis, he applied for the same. He was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 14.12.2002 (Annexure P-2). Condition No. 3 of the said appointment letter envisages that if the petitioner resigns during probation, he shall be liable to refund to the Institute all the moneys paid to him on account of pay and allowances, etc. Further, for submitting resignation during probation or after one year of probation, he shall be required to give one month's notice or deposit with the Institute, pay and allowances in lieu of the notice period by which it falls short of one month. While working as Assistant Professor, the petitioner was selected for appointment as Consultant in General Psychiatry at South Stafford Shire Health Care, NHS Trust. Accordingly, on 14.11.2003, he submitted his resignation from the post of Assistant Professor at the Institute. The respondent-Institute, however, insisted that since the petitioner had not completed two years' of service from the date of his appointment on regular basis, he could only be permitted to resign on refund of the entire amount received by him on account of pay and allowances for the period from 14.12.2002 i.e. the date of his appointment till the date of resignation on 14.11.2003. The petitioner had to join his new place of posting by 5.12.2003 and, therefore, he had no option but to deposit the aforesaid entire amount of salary, which came to Rs. 3,06,229/- on 19.11.2003. Thereafter, his resignation was accepted on 1.12.2003. The petitioner, however, later came to know that similar conditions that had been incorporated in the appointment letters of others by the respondent-Institute had been relaxed by it. Accordingly, he submitted a representation on 30.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) in which the case of one Shri Abhijit Banerjee was referred who had also resigned during the period of his probation but the aforesaid condition qua the refund of salary had been waived off on the condition that he would deposit one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. The petitioner, thus, requested that the aforesaid condition be relaxed/waived off in his case as well. The respondent-Institute, however, sent a one line memo dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure P-6) informing the petitioner that his representation regarding acceptance of resignation/refund of pay has been considered and was found to be without any force. It is stated that the said memo does not contain any reason for declining the request of the petitioner and that it does not even dispute the fact that the condition regarding refund of the entire salary paid to Shri Abhijit Banerjee had been waived off. The petitioner later came to know that the aforesaid condition in his case had not been waived off on the ground that he had attended one conference in USA at the expense of the respondent-Institute. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 3.5.2005 pointing out that he had not attended any conference nor had he withdrawn the sanctioned amount because he was not given visa by the Immigration Authorities for visiting USA. However, no response has been received to the said representation. Accordingly, by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the impugned memo dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure P-6) whereby his representation has been rejected as also the quashing of the condition requiring him to deposit/surrender the amount of salary earned by him for the period of service rendered as Assistant Professor from 14.12.2002 to 14.11.2003 with a further prayer that the amount of Rs. 3,06,229/- along with interest @ 15% per annum be refunded.
(2.) On notice, written-statement has been filed by the respondent-Institute. The factual assertions as made in the petition are not disputed. However, it is stated that the petitioner accepted the post of Assistant Professor on the terms and conditions as incorporated in the appointment letter. Besides, the Institute had to spend time and incur expenses to finalise the process of selection like firstly, the file is to be approved, thereafter the advertisements are issued, applications are sorted out, payment of TA/DA is made to the experts and meetings of the standing selection committee are held. In nutshell, it is submitted that it can be said that this process involves lot of exercise of the man power and expenditure on the exchequer. It is further submitted that when the petitioner submitted his resignation on 14.11.2003, he had not completed two years' regular service after appointment. Therefore, he was required to deposit the amount received by him in terms of clause-3 of his appointment letter. The petitioner deposited the amount on 19.11.2003. It is thereafter that he made a representation on 30.12.2004 i.e. after a delay of more than one year. The case of Shri Abhijit Banerjee, it is stated, is not similar to the case of the petitioner as he was working as Junior Lab Technician which is a Class-C post whereas the petitioner was a member of Group 'A' Class services. The representation of the petitioner, it is submitted, has rightly been rejected. The respondent-Institute, it is submitted, has been invoking clause 3 of the appointment letter in other similar cases also, a reference of which is made in the written-statement.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.;