The power to appoint, as defined by statute, implicitly includes the power to suspend or dismiss. When a transitional provision mandates an initial appointment by a higher authority, that authority functions as the appointing authority and retains the power to carry out disciplinary actions and termination of service.

JUDGMENT : :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals assail the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (“the High Court”), whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the First Registrar”) was allowed and the order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, were set aside.

FACTS

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeals are set out hereinbelow.

4. The Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 (“the Act”), was enacted to establish and incorporate a National Aviation University for facilitating and promoting aviation studies and achieving excellence in the fields of aviation management, policy, science and technology, inter alia. Pursuant thereto, the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University (“the University”) was established under the provisions of the Act.

5. In exercise of the powers under Section 27(1) of the Act, the Central Government on 07.03.2016, framed the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, First Statute, 2016 (“the Statutes”). The President of India, being the Visitor of the University, on 28.02.2019, conveyed approval for the appointment of the First Registrar. Thereafter, on 01.03.2019, the Vice Chancellor issued an offer of appointment to the First Registrar, appointing him on probation for a period of one year. On 08.04.2019, the First Registrar assumed charge as Registrar of the University.

6. During the period of probation, the services of the First Registrar were terminated by order dated 08/09.01.2020 and he was paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The First Registrar thereafter instituted two writ petitions challenging the order of termination, as well as the advertisement issued for filling up the post of Registrar. The aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn on 13.01.2021 with liberty to file fresh petitions.

7. Thereafter, the First Registrar filed a writ petition on 22.01.2021 seeking quashing of the order of termination dated 08/09.01.2020 and the advertisement dated 04.05.2020 issued for filling up the post of Registrar. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.09.2021, directed the appellants to reinstate the First Registrar to the post of Registrar of the University with all consequential benefits, in terms of the appointment letter dated 01.03.2019. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.

8. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order before the Division Bench. By an order dated 17.12.2021, the Division Bench, inter alia, held that the order terminating the services of the First Registrar during probation was ex facie stigmatic and the matter was remitted to the University to proceed afresh in accordance with law and to pass an appropriate order within a period of two months. It was further directed that the entitlement of the First Registrar to back wages would abide by the outcome of the further action to be taken by the University. The order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge, was modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal was partly allowed.

9. The First Registrar challenged the order dated 17.12.2021 before this Court, by filing a Special Leave Petition, which came to be dismissed on 04.02.2022, with liberty to the Firs