Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Rajiv Chopra - Appellant
Versus
University Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3266 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous Applcation No. 11447 of 2020, 12563 of 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2020
Sachin Datta, Advocate, M.J.S. Rupal, Advocate, Akanksha Kaul, Advocate, Manek Singh, Advocate, Pritish Sabharwal, Advocate, Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Advocate, Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate, Anand Nandan, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petition for quashing the repatriation order and retaining position as Officer on Special Duty-Principal - Appointment of Petitioner was purely on officiating basis and for six months under Clause 7(3)(c) of Ordinance XVIII of University of Delhi - Extensions were granted but did not confer a right to continue indefinitely - Court acknowledged malafide intent pertaining to the appointment - Order issued without the intended opportunity for charges against Petitioner - Importance on the nature of the appointment and interpretation of related terms - Court held the action did not constitute a reduction in rank or punishment and was within the authority's rights - Petitioner’s attempts to invoke Article 311(2) dismissed as inapplicable in this context - No vested rights to remain in position; regular appointments shall only occur under stipulated conditions. (Paras 1-5, 12-16, 31-35, 68-70)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner was appointed as Officer on Special Duty at Respondent No. 2 College for six months in October 2013, continued for six years without new appointments made for principal post, resulting in impugned order on May 24, 2020, returning to Parent College.
Findings of Court:
Court found the petitioner’s removal was within discretion as the official post was temporary, and the necessity for an OSD remained. Sufficient legal grounds supported the repatriation under Ordinance XVIII provisions.
Issues: The core questions included the nature of the appointment, whether there existed a vested right for continuation in the OSD role, and if the actions of the University violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: Court focused on the transitory nature of the appointment and held that the repatriation did not infringe on any rights that warranted the protections under Article 311, as the appointment was clearly temporary. The Court reaffirmed the non-creation of a substantively enforceable right to continue beyond the appointments rendered.
Result: Petition dismissed, with emphasis placed on the lack of illegality or arbitrariness in the university's decision to repatriate the petitioner.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutional petition for quashing repatriation order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments detailing the petitioner's qualifications and alleged malafide removal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's recognition of the limits of osd appointment in terms of temporary nature. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. context of extension of osd appointments and requirements for removal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. discussion on appointment criteria under ugc regulations. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. clarification on powers during the pandemic and electronic communication for approvals. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. focus on temporary appointment nature and relevant case law. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. delineation of rights concerning temporary and officiating appointments. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 9. law on temporary post tenure and reversion rights. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 10. evaluation of whether an order of reversion constitutes punishment. (Para 50 , 52 , 54) |
| 11. final observations on procedural propriety and treatment of educators. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 12. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 70) |
| 13. conclusion on applications related to the main petition. (Para 72 , 73) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Present Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the letter dated 24.05.2020 whereby the Petitioner has been repatriated to his parent college, as also, for a direction to Respondent No. 1 to continue the Petitioner on the post of Officer on Special Duty-Principal (hereinafter referred to as ''OSD'') in Respondent No. 2/ College. Quashing of the appointment of Respondent No. 4 on the post of OSD in Respondent No. 2 is also sought.
2. Case of the Petitioner is that on 01.10.2013, Petitioner was selected as OSD in Respondent No. 2/ College and continued on the said post. The appointment was made vide letter dated 30.09.2013 and was for a period of six months in terms of the provisions of Clause 7(3)(c) of Ordinance XVIII of University of Delhi. It is further averred that the appointment was extended vide letters dated 21.04.2014 and 25.09.2014, respectively. No order has been passed after 25.09.2014 and the Petitioner has continued on the said post, till the Impugned Order was passed on 24.05.2020.
3. It is averred by the Petitioner that on 24.05.2020, which was Sunday and a holiday, Respondent No. 1 passed the Impugned Order and the malafide is evident from the fact that on 25.05.2020, which was again a holiday, on account of Eid, Respondent No. 4, who has been appointed in place of the Petitioner, without any relieving letter from the Petitioner, joined the post. Letter dated 25.05.2020 was sent to the Petitioner at midnight and no formal handing over of charge took place, before Respondent No. 4 took over. It is averred that there was no urgency or any immediate cause to remove the Petitioner, from the post of OSD except, malafide on part of the Respondents. Petitioner feels humiliated by the manner in which he has been repatriated as well as the way he has been prevented from even entering the office, after dedicatedly serving for 6 years.
4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner contends that the Petitioner was selected and appointed as OSD, purely on his merit and there is no reason or cause to have removed him from the said post. The reason given in the impugned letter for removing the Petitioner, that he has completed more than six years as OSD, itself reveals the malafide intent as, the case of the Petitioner is not an isolated one and in several other colleges of the University, OSDs have been allowed to continue for several years, in the absence of regular appointments of principals. To substantiate this argument, learned Counsel has relied on the case of Dr. Vipin Kumar, who was appointed as OSD in Sri Aurobindo College vide order dated 31.12.2013 and continues till date.
5. Learned Counsel further submits that the impugned action is a fall out of a Petition filed by the Petitioner in this Court, being W.P. (C) No. 4521/2019, titled Dr. Rajiv Chopra v
