SHARMA, J. - (1.) MAIN grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that after he was substantively appointed through open selection as Registrar Engineering College Kota, the respondents at a later point of time unilaterally converted his appointment into a term appointment and issued order dated June 19, 1999. The petitioner seeks to quash the said order and prays that he may be allowed to continue on the post of Registrar till he attains the age of superannuation with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE petitioner averred in the writ petition that he was initially working in the Instrumentation Limited, Kota from 1975 to April, 1994 as Manager (Technical) and was thereafter appointed as Reader (Electronic, Instrumentation and Control. Engineering) vide order dated 1. 8. 1994. While the petitioner was holding the post of Reader in Engineering College Kota the respondents advertised the post of Registrar in pay scale of Rs. 1130-350-16200. THE said advertisement was published in the daily Newspaper "rajasthan Patrika" on April 29, 1998. In pursuance to the said advertisement the petitioner submitted application for consideration of his candidature to the post of Registrar. THE respondent after examining the eligibility and qualifications of the petitioner called him for interview vide letter dated June 4, 1998. After the petitioner's suitability being adjudged by the respondents he was found suitable and on the recommendations made by the selection committee duly approved by the Chairman of the Engineering College, the petitioner came to be appointed as Registrar, Engineering College Kota vide order dated June 24, 1998. Pursuant to it the petitioner joined as Registrar on June 24, 1998 and after his joining as Registrar his temporary appointment was terminated from the post of Reader vide order dated June 26, 1998. At the time of his appointment the pay of the petitioner was fixed provisionally in the pay scale of Rs. 11300-16000 which was prescribed for the post of Registrar and after the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission his pay on the post of Reader in Engineering College Kota which he was holding on June 24, 1998 was protected. The petitioner further pleaded that he has been working after regular selection as Registrar in substantive capacity, the respondents issued an order on June 19, 1999 whereby unilaterally an amendment was made in the order of petitioner's initial appointment dated June 24, 1998 treating his appointment to be a term appointment for three years and the order of earlier appointment stood modified accordingly. In the said order a note has been appended with the approval of the Chairman dated 4. 07. 1998 was in the knowledge of the petitioner as he signed the note sheet which was sent to the Chairman for approval. The petitioner immediately protested the said unilateral amendment made in the order dated June 24, 1998 by submitting representation on July 16, 1999. He further sent reminders on October 29, 1999, February 5, 2000 and April 20, 2000, but no action was taken by the respondent on the said representations. Thereafter further representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Chairman of the Society (respondent No. 2) on June 26, 2000 with a request that unilateral amendment made in the appointment order was unjust and improper. In the writ petition the petitioner further averred that the modification in the initial appointment order made vide order dated June 19, 2000 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The condition of contract could not have been changed unilaterally. In respect of note appended in the order dated June 24, 1998 the petitioner pleaded that in administrative hierarchy all note sheets go through the Registrar, as such the note sheet was also sent to the petitioner but that knowledge of the petitioner in no manner will hold to be his consent. Immediately after the decision was taken in altering condition of his appointment unilaterally, the petitioner made a protest in the month of July, 2000 and sent reminders. In the reply submitted by the respondents, it was pleaded that the petitioner had mislead the selection Board and he did not submit the marks sheet and only submitted the degree of the examination. In the application form submitted by the petitioner for appointment on the post of Registrar he has stated that he passed the M. Sc. (Physics) Examination with 55 per cent marks and secured second division. In fact the petitioner secured only 50. 5 per cent marks and thus the petitioner gave a wrong declaration in the application form. The petitioner also submitted that he possessed the qualification of Management Trainee Courts but in fact the petitioner was appointed as Engineering Graduate Apprentice. It was further averred in the reply that the petitioner was holding the post of Registrar Engineering College Kota as a stop-gap arrangement at the time when the process of selection was initiated by issuing advertisement for inviting the application forms till the stage when the selection process was concluded and the appointment order was issued. The Registrar who performs the executive and secretarial work of the Engineering College looks after the work of initiating the selection process of all the posts. The petitioner deliberately in the advertisement did not get it mentioned that the incumbent must possess Higher Second Division in the Post Graduate Examination. In the advertisement itself the petitioner malafidely did not get it mentioned that the post of Registrar shall be filled in on contract basis for a period of three years. The petitioner took the benefit of his position as Registrar (temporary charge) in order to take benefit for himself. It was further averred in the reply that the Society in its meeting held on May 18, 1992 passed a resolution that (the post of Registrar shall be filled in on contract basis for a period of three years. The Chairman of the Society approved the above said resolution. In view of the resolution it was necessary to amend the intentional error made in the initial appointment order. The amendment in fact is not unilateral but an amendment to convey to the petitioner the terms of post in writing which was otherwise in knowledge of the petitioner. Objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petitioner was also raised in the writ petition. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents and carefully perused the material on record. In support of his contention Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Karnataka State Coop. Apex Bank Ltd. vs. Y. S. Shetty and others (1), and Chandra Shakher vs. State of Rajasthan Whereas Mr. R. N. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents cited University of Cochin vs. N. S. Kanjoonjamma and others (3), and Dharam Pal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Following questions emerge for my consideration in the instant matter. (i) Whether the terms of appointment incorporated in the appointment order can be unilaterally modified at a later point of time? (ii) Whether misrepresentation made by a candidate at the time of his appointment can affect the appointment and whether in such a situation the candidate is not entitled to hearing? ;