1993 Supreme(Raj) 459

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Suman Kumar Gupta - Appellant
Versus
The University of Rajasthan and Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3334 of 1992.
Decided On : 1-02-1993

An ad hoc appointee has a right to continue in service till the availability of a regularly selected person and can be removed from service only in eventualities like abolition of the post, unsatisfactory performance, or disciplinary action.

Headnote:

UNIVERSITY - SERVICE - AD HOC APPOINTMENT - EXTENSION - ARBITRARINESS - PUBLIC INTEREST - RIGHT TO CONTINUE - REGULARLY SELECTED PERSON - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - CONDITIONS - FAIRNESS - EQUALITY - CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATES - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION - QUALIFICATIONS - APPROVAL - ADVISORY COMMITTEE - VICE CHANCELLOR - PERFORMANCE - REPRESENTATIONS - OTHER POSTS - TECHNICAL ASSISTANT - NMR EQUIPMENT - PUBLIC FUNCTION - GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION - HIGHER EDUCATION - EQUALITY CLAUSES - ARTICLES 14 AND 16 - SUBSTANTIVE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT - TRAINING - MAINTENANCE - FT-NMR - SPECIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME - SANCTIONED POSTS - CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY - SELECTION - ABOLITION OF POST - DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Technical Assistant in the Department of Chemistry, University of Rajasthan, was appointed as Senior Technician, FT-NMR on an ad hoc basis for six months with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor. After the expiry of the term, the University decided not to extend his appointment due to representations from other Technical Assistants and the fact that the post was not advertised for regular selection. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that it was arbitrary and violative of his right to continue in service till the availability of a regularly selected person.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the University's decision was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It observed that the petitioner was a substantive Technical Assistant with satisfactory performance, that the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR had not been advertised for regular selection, and that there was no evidence to suggest that any other person in the University fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the post. The Court also noted that the University's decision was based solely on the representations made by other Technical Assistants, which was not a valid ground for terminating the petitioner's appointment.

Issues: 1. Whether the University's decision not to extend the petitioner's appointment was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the petitioner had a right to continue in service till the availability of a regularly selected person? 3. Whether the University could terminate the petitioner's appointment without following the due process of law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the University's decision was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it was based solely on the representations made by other Technical Assistants, which was not a valid ground for terminating the petitioner's appointment. The Court also noted that the University had not advertised the post for regular selection and that there was no evidence to suggest that any other person in the University fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the post. 2. The Court held that the petitioner had a right to continue in service till the availability of a regularly selected person, as per the principle established in Anita Kothari v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1990 (1) RLR 87. The Court observed that an ad hoc appointee can be removed from service only in eventualities like abolition of the post, unsatisfactory performance, or disciplinary action. 3. The Court held that the University could not terminate the petitioner's appointment without following the due process of law, which includes giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself against the allegations made against him.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the University to treat the petitioner as continuing on the post of Senior Technician, FT-NMR without break and to give him all consequential benefits. The Court also directed that the petitioner's continuance would be subject to the availability of a regularly selected person and that his service would be liable to be terminated if it became necessary on the basis of disciplinary action or abolition of the post.