1. Petitioner came to be engaged as Lecturer in the Department of Media Education Research Centre (MERC), on adhoc basis by the respondent No. 1. Some other persons were also engaged as lecturers on adhoc basis in different disciplines in the University, pursuant to selection made by a Committee constituted for the purpose and after the applications were invited through advertisement notice dated 21-8-1990. Petitioner along with some others apprehending their disengagement filed SWP No: 1513/1994, seeking a restraint order in respect to termination of their adhoc services with the further prayer to allow them to continue on the post which they were holding at the relevant time. An interim order dated 21-12-1994 was passed which reads as under: -

Z.A. Qureshi.

The petitioner stand appointed as Lecturers in the University of Kashmir (Petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Media Education and Petitioner No. 3 in Political Science) in pursuance of advertisement notice dated 21-8-1990, and have been allowed to continue by various orders passed by the competent authority from time to time, till date. The petitioners have the. apprehension that the respondents may not terminate their services without giving them an opportunity of being heard and may not be paid for winter.

Issue notice to the respondents returnable within eight weeks time, to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted to hearing.

Issue notice in the CMP also, returnable within the same period. In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue as Lecturers in their respective departments till further orders from this court. They shall also be paid their salary, and no breaks shall be given in their services.

The petitioners are directed to file the required number of registered AD covers within the course of this week, for effecting service upon the respondents.

This petition arises from Kashmir province, as such, it is directed to be transferred to the Srinagar wing of this court, for further proceedings.

2. While this petition was pending, the petitioner was terminated vide the impugned order dated 16-12-1999 and his adhoc arrangement was brought to an end. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

3. The grounds of challenge as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner™s termination is violative of principles of natural justice, fair play and good conscience. It is contrary to the order of the court passed in SWP No: 1513/ 1994, the impugned order is arbitrary.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, a supplementary affidavit was filed wherein, additional grounds of challenge was incorporated to the effect that the order of termination is punitive as petitioner has been terminated on account of alleged absence from duty, for which enquiry was required to be conducted. It is also added that the termination of the petitioner is on account of malafides on the part of the Vice Chancellor because of the reply submitted by him to the show cause notice issued to him.

5. The respondents have filed reply to the original writ petition as also to the supplementary affidavit. In the reply, it is specifically stated that the petitioner did not observe decency as was required. It is also stated that the Vice Chancellor on his visit to some of the Post-graduate departments, also visited MERC on 30-9-1999 and petitioner was found absent from duty. An explanation was sought from him and in reply to the explanation, the petitioner instead if feeling sorry for his absence sent a detailed note to Head of Department, which smacks all kinds of decency. He admitted his guilt in his reply and, therefore, his services were dispensed with.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner™s engagement on adhoc basis and his continuance from time to time and later on under interim directions of the court is admitted. The impugned termination order issued by the respondents read as under: -

The Unive

Click Here to Read the rest of this document