- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, in the instant case, a Professor in the Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur was supposed to retire on 30.11.1996 on reaching the age of superannuation. The Chairman of the Institute, however vide Annexure -1 dated 31.10.1996 issued an order to re -appoint him as Professor of Mathematics for two years at the pay he was drawing at the time of superannuation. The petitioner, thereafter continued till 8.10.1997 when his reappointment / re -engagement was annulled in view of the resolution of the Board of Governors', Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur in its 83rdrd meeting held on 12.9.1997. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order dated 8.10.1997 (Annexure -5) issued under the signature of the Principal, R.I.T, Jamshedpur has approached this Court in the present writ application.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the Chairman was authorized to make an appointment in view of the terms and conditions governing the permanent employees of the Institute( to be incorporated in the Bye Laws) vide Annexure -7 in which under Clause 2 under the heading "Authority"3, relating to the rules for appointment in the Institute, it is stated that whenever the Board is unable to meet to decide an urgent issue the Chairman of the Board of Governors shall take decision in the matter and report to the Board at its next meeting for information. 3. According to the petitioner, vide Annexure -2 dated 29.12.1996 and Annexure -4 dated 20.5.1997 the matter was placed for approval / ratification of the Board of Governors. Apparently, the decision of the Chairman was not disapproved. In such circumstances the petitioner's engagement, as a matter of fact was continuation of original appointment and not in the nature of fresh contract. Hence, the manner in which the impugned order annulling his engagement has been passed is wholly arbitrary and not permissible in law. The tenure of his services has been curtailed in an arbitrary manner without following the mandate of law. Respondents, by referring to the same Annexure -7 which lays down the terms and conditions of the permanent employees of the Institute in para 2, thereof, have submitted that the Board may in exceptional cases, grant extension of service or re -employ any member of the staff beyond the age of 60 years. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that at no point of time the Board had approved the reappointment / re -engagement of the petitioner rather on the basis of an earlier resolution of the year 1992 only in exceptional cases any reappointment or re -engagement could have been done for any staff including teachers, who was going to superannuate from the services of the Institute. However, there was no emergent reason in engaging the petitioner at the behest of the Chairman of the Board of Governors. However, by relying upon Annexure -9 to the supplementary affidavit dated 3.10.1997, it is stated that the Board of Governors in their 83rdrd meeting held on 12.9.1997 decided that no extension should be given to retired persons at this stage. The Board also resolved that any re -engagement / reappointment continuing in the Institute is annulled. Accordingly, re -engagement of two such persons was rejected and on the same basis the re -engagement of the petitioner was annulled with immediate effect. It is submitted that therefore the petitioner has no case to make and impugned order has been rightly passed and the petitioner has no subsisting right to continue in service after retirement in absence of approval of the Board of Governors.;