ORDER :

Heard.

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10/01/2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby the services of the petitioner was dispensed with by the Surguja Vishwavidyalaya, Amibkapur.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Adjunct Professor on 03/07/2012 in exercise of power under Section 15 (4) of the C.G. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam, 1973). The appointment was by the then Vice Chancellor and according to the petitioner the Executive Council in its meeting dated 06/01/2013 approved the salary to be paid to the petitioner as per the provisions of Regulation 31. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that once the action has been taken by the Kulpati under Section 15 (4) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 he shall at the earliest opportunity report his action to the Executive Council. As per Section 15 (5) if the committee does not approve such action, it shall refer the matter to the Kuladhipati. Further as per Section 15 (6) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 the action taken by the Kulpati under sub-section (4) shall be deemed to be the action taken by the appropriate authority until it is set-aside by the Kuladhipati on a reference made under sub-section (5) or is set-aside by the Executive Council in appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore submit that once the appointment of the petitioner was made by Annexure P/2, which was subsequently approved by the Executive Council, under Section 15 (5) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 Kuladhipati alone could have only terminated the services. The further submission is made that as per Section 55 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 any dispute about the constitution of University authorities and initially the appointment matter is liable to be referred to the Kuladhipati whose decision shall be final. However, the Vice Chancellor who was subsequently appointed canceled the appointment of the petitioner. He would further submit that till July, 2013 the salary was paid, however, from August, 2013 till his termination on 10/01/2014 the salary was not paid for which the legal notices were also served. He would further submit that the termination being de hors the rules, the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for the entire salary. Further he placed his reliance upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma & Others {(2021) 17 SCC 642}.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Section 15 (4) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 would not be applicable as the Kulpati could not exercise the power under Section 15 (4) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 as it will have a financial repercussion. The counsel would submit that the said appointment by the Kulpati was in haste on 03/07/2012 (Annexure P/2) was illegal and Section 49 (1) which has been referred in the appointment order would also show that unless appointment is recommended by the selection committee the appointment to the teaching post in the University cannot be done. In this case in entirity the facts were given a go bye.

5. He would further submit that the age of the petitioner was 73 when he was appointed. It is contended that the age would reflect from the cause-title of the petition. It is stated that the appointment of the like nature to the public institution could not have been made by the then Kulpati by misusing the power of appointment. He would further submit that the Adjunct facility is only to enhance the faculty and resource of University as per the guidelines of U.G.C. and the petitioner cannot be appointed as Adjunct Professor, therefore, the appointment itself was void ab initio. He placed his reliance in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Mahendra Singh {2022 SCC OnLine SC 909} and Marathwada University Vs. Shesh Rao Balwant Rao Chavan {(1989) 3 SCC 132} and judgment of Patna High Court in Navin Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Biha