Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Sachindra Nath Misra S/o Late Prabhat Chandra Misra – Petitioner
Versus
The Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University, Guwahati – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4769 of 2020
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - General Clauses Act – Section 21 - Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Act, 2005 -Recruitment process – Appointment – Tenure - Petitioner was earlier serving as Private Secretary to Vice-Chancellor, Gauhati University. Pursuant to a recruitment process for the post of Secretary to ViceChancellor, KKHSOU, petitioner, who claims to have fulfilled all requisite qualifications and eligibility had successfully participated in said selection process - Accordingly, an order was issued by which petitioner was appointed as Secretary to ViceChancellor, KKHSOU for a tenure of 5(five) years - Admittedly, petitioner had joined post - Appointment order contains a Clause that same would be renewed after 5(five) years for any further period, as may be decided - It is not in dispute between parties that Board of Management of KKHSOU inits 51st meeting had adopted a resolution to fix tenure of existing employees till attainment of 60 years- Whether impugned order is sustainable in law.
Finding of the Court : This Court is of opinion that issue regarding application of mind can be answered if on examination of records, it is found that contemporaneous materials in file can lead to a conclusion that relevant factors were taken into consideration - In the instant case, while the order of extension was preceded by due discussion wherein all relevant factors were taken into consideration, including satisfactory performance of petitioner, impugned order has been initiated by a Note of Registrar wherein the subject is legality and validity of extension order issued by the same authority - This court is of view that concerned resolution leading to such extension order was a general one of fixing the upper age limit of employees at 60 years of age with an exception regarding extension which was prerogative of Vice-chancellorAccordingly, same is set aside and quashed - Since petitioner was forcefully debarred from rendering his services, it is directed that upon setting aside impugned order petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits for extended period of service.
Result : Writ petition stands allowed
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by questioning the legality and validity of an order dated 26.06.2020 issued by the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University (hereinafter called, KKHSOU). By the impugned order, the earlier order dated 24.12.2019 of extension of service of the petitioner as Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor till completion of 65 years of age has been cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that such action is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is otherwise bad in law and therefore liable for interference by this Court.
2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this Case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.
3. The petitioner was earlier serving as the Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor, Gauhati University. Pursuant to a recruitment process for the post of Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor, KKHSOU, the petitioner, who claims to have fulfilled all the requisite qualifications and eligibility had successfully participated in the said selection process. Accordingly, an order dated 01.06.2015 was issued by which the petitioner was appointed as Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor, KKHSOU for a tenure of 5(five) years. Admittedly, the petitioner had joined the post on 07.07.2015. The appointment order contains a Clause that the same would be renewed after 5(five) years for any further period, as may be decided.
4. It is not in dispute between the parties that the Board of Management of KKHSOU in its 51st meeting held on 27.09.2019 had adopted a resolution to fix the tenure of the existing employees till the attainment of 60 years. The said resolution however empowered the Vice-Chancellor to extend/re-employ any existing employee up to the age of 65 years subject to satisfactory performance and need of the service as per the existing terms and conditions stated in the Ordinance. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.10.2019 he had made a representation for extending his service in terms of the aforesaid resolution.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the representation was acted upon and considering the Clause in the appointment letter that the term may renewed after 5(five) years and also the satisfactory performance, a decision was taken to extend his service. The consequential order of extension of service was passed on 24.12.2019 whereby the services of the petitioner stood extended up to 28.02.2022 i.e. the end of the month when he completes 65 years of age.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the blue, the impugned order dated 26.06.2020 was passed whereby the earlier order of extension of service of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner had submitted a representation against the aforesaid order and to allow him to continue in service in accordance with the order dated 24.12.2019 which was not paid any heed to. The petitioner has categorically pleaded that no notice or opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order dated 26.06.2020. Amongst various legal grounds assailing the impugned order including the principal ground of gross violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner has pleaded grave inconvenience and hardship for sudden discontinuation of his service as the petitioner had taken various loans on the strength of being in service till the 28.02.2022. The petitioner has however admitted that he had to obtain a release order so as to enable himself to get the pensionary benefit from his earlier employer namely, the Gauhati University.
7. It appears from the Court records that at the stage of Motion, an argument was made on behalf of KKHSOU that since the extension was granted without fulfilling the pre-requisite, taking of adverse action was not required to be done by following the principles of natural justice and in this regard a case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rep
Point of Law : Court quashing an administrative decision without substituting its own decision, and is to be contrasted with an appeal where the appellate tribunal substitutes its own decision on the....
The failure to provide a hearing before terminating services violates principles of natural justice, rendering the decision invalid.
Termination without due process violates natural justice; confirmed employees must be given an opportunity to present their case per established service rules.
Dismissal of an employee without a fair inquiry violates natural justice principles and statutory provisions, making the writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedies.
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
