Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :A.N.Divecha
GUJARAT KRUSHI UNIVERSITY,dantiwada - Appellant
Versus
D.N.VAGAD - Respondent
C.A.49 of 1992
Decided On : 06/24/1993
The word "Institution" has not been defined under the Act. It is a term of common parlance. Its meaning can therefore be ascertained from a dictionary. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (3rd Impression 1992) published by Oxford University Press defines it inter alia to mean a `Society or Organisation founded especially for charitable, religious, educational or social purpose. This Scheme was with respect to some activity for Distribution of Ammonium Sulphate. It was admittedly an activity relating to Research, Education and Extension Programme pertaining to the Department of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. Keeping the dictionary meaning of the word "Institution" in mine, the Scheme can certainly be said to be an "Institution" within the meaning of Section 51(5) of the Act.
[Para 4]
Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969 - Sec. 52(3) & (4) - Absorption in the service of University under sub-sec. 4 of Sec. 52 - Deeming fiction contemplated cannot be defeated by administrative action of Government in view of Sub-sec. (3) of Sec.52 - Retransfer of the scheme under government resolution at Exh.56 would not operate as retransfer of entire staff in view of sub-sec. (3) - What has to be done with staff after retransfer of scheme is not for the Court to advise but it is for university to decide.
It becomes clear from bare perusal of sub-sections (3) & (4) of section 52 of the Act that a duty is cast on every officer or servant of the state Government taken over by the University to give notice in writing within two years from the date he is so taken over ( or such further time, if any, as the State Government may decide) inter alia if he wanted to be permanently absorbed in the service of the University or if he wanted to be repatriated to the government service. Sub-section (4) creates a deeming fiction of option to be permanently absorbed in the service of the University if no written notice is given under sub-section (3) within the time referred to therein.
[Para 5]
Court thinks the University should be in a position to find out how his services can best be utilised. It is possible that the appellant University might have recruited some persons for the purpose of that Scheme. Retransfer of the Scheme under the Resolution at Exh.56 on the record of the case would not mean retransfer of the entire staff in view of clause (3) thereof. The Government has unequivocally clarified therein that, if any new staff is appointed for the purpose of any of the Scheme under retransfer, the appellant University will have to retain such newly appointed staff. The Government has thereby meant that it would be for the University to utilise services of such newly appointed staff for its own purposes though appointed for the purpose of a particular Scheme under retransfer. Besides, it is not the function of this Court to advise the appellant University as to what it has to do if no work is available for respondent No.1 herein on retransfer of the scheme in question.
[Para 7]
Service & Employment - Reversion - Order of - Visiting with adverse financial consequences cannot be made without affording opportunity of hearing to the person affected - Order set aside.
It is true that a person, whether natural or artificial, is entitled to correct his or its errors or mistakes. It is however a settled principle of law that, if such correction visits the person in respect of whom such errors or mistakes are made with adverse financial consequences, an opportunity of hearing has to be given before the alleged errors or mistakes are corrected or rectified.
[Para 11]
( 1 ) ). The judgment and the decree passed by the learned Extra assistant Judge of Junagadh on 22/10/1991 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 134 of 1987 are under challenge in this appeal preferred by original defendant No. 1 under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the code for brief ). Thereby the learned Lower Appellate Judge dismissed the present appellants appeal against the judgment and the decree passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) at Junagadh on llth September, 1987 in Regular Civil Suit No. 126 of 1979. It is needless to say that the trial court decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1 herein as the plaintiff.
( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this appeal move in a narrow compass. The appellant is a University established under the Gujarat Agricultural university Act, 1969 (the Act for brief ). It appears that by the Government resolution of 25/06/1973 at Exh. 43 on the record of the trial Court, certain activities relating to Research, Education and Extension Training programme facilities pertaining to the Department of Agriculture and Animal husbandry of respondent No. 2 herein came to be transferred to the appellant. This was obviously done under Sec. 51 (5) of the Act. One of these schemes transferred to the appellant University thereunder was the scheme for distribution of Ammonium Sulphate. It was transferred with certain staff of the scheme namely 4 (four) Analysers and 1 (one Laboratory boy. They were to be treated as on deputation. The transfer was to be made effective from 1/07/1973. The staff transferred with the aforesaid scheme included transfer of respondent No. 1 herein in his capacity as an Analyser. His service was also placed under the control of the appellant university. It appears that by its order passed on 30/05/1974 at Exh. 44 on the record of the case, he was promoted as Agricultural Officer on ad hoc basis and appointed as the Principal of Agricultural College at Junagadh. It appears that it was brought to the notice of the appellant university that he was not its permanent employee and was transferred to it on 1/06/1972 and he was wrongly given promotion. Thereupon, by its order passed on 22/04/1976 the promotion given to him by the order at Exh. 44 came to be cancelled. A copy of the order passed on 22/04/1976 is at Exh. 45 on the record of the case. This order was implemented by the order of 27/04/1976 at Exh. 46 on the record of the case. It appears that the idea to retransfer the scheme for Distribution of Ammonium Sulphate to respondent No. 2 was under consideration. It appears that a decision in that regard was taken and the necessary notification was issued by the appellant university on 2/08/1977 inter alia for recommendation of retransfer of the scheme for Distribution of Ammonium Sulphate. It appears that this recommendation was accepted by respondent No. 2 and the necessary resolution in that regard was passed on 31/05/1979. Its copy is at Exh. 56 on the record of the case. It appears that prior to that the Director of Education issued one office order infer alia promoting respondent No. 1 herein to the post of Agricultural Officer on ad hoc basis pending availability of the candidates for the post selected by the Public Service commission or for a period of six months whichever eventuality occurring earlier. A copy of that office order of 28/03/1979 is at Exh. 47 on the record of the case. It appears that in the mean time respondent No. I herein filed one suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Junagadh questioning the correctness of the reversion order on the ground that he was an employee of the appellant University and was therefore, entitled to promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer. He also prayed for a mandatory injunction for his promotion to and reinstatement on the post of agricultural Officer with full back wages and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein and respondent No. 2 herein from issuing any o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
