Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Dr. Shruti Kanga & Another – Petitioners
Vs.
Central University of Jharkhand through its Vice Chancellor & Others – Respondents
W.P. (S) Nos. 3782 and 3783 of 2016
Decided On : 13-01-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar, Ashutosh Singh and Chandana Kumari.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta and Ms. Niyati Sah.
Headnote:As per provisions of section 18(6) the appointment to the post of Assistant Prof. can be made on temporary basis with the recommendation of selection committee and the period must not beyond 6 months – it was pleaded that the period beyond 6 months would be in contradiction to this clause – other clause 18(6)(ii) provides for the appointment for longer period – in the instant matter the petitioner were appointed on contractual basis – the university contented that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to clause 18(6) so they are not entitle to relief of regularization of services – the term of petitioner’s contract expired – it was contended that one employee on ad hoc basis can not be removed by the other employee standing on same footing – it was considered that the one on ad hoc basis must be reinstated or not can be decided on the facts of the case – the appointment made on regular basis so that the arbitrary action can be avoided – the university checked the entire process of selection – the appointment of the petitioner held not legal – accordingly petition dismissed.
1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality of advertisement issued on 02.07.2016 whereby applications for temporary engagement of Assistant Professors at various centers in the Central University of Jharkhand were invited.
2. Heard.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3782 of 2016 were selected pursuant to advertisement issued on 16.06.2011 and they were appointed as Assistant Professors (Guest Faculty) on contractual basis. Petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3783 of 2016 were also appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in the same manner. Their contractual period was subsequently extended from time to time. It is pleaded that vide Resolution dated 08.05.2015 of Deans Committee further extension of contractual period for 11 months, in terms of Clause 13.1 of the U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, was granted and consequently the petitioners' contractual period was extended for further 11 months. On 02.07.2016, an advertisement for walk-in-interview was issued for engagement, on purely temporary basis, on payment of consolidated remuneration of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners, when advertisement dated 02.07.2016 was issued, were already getting remuneration @ Rs. 35,000/- and in terms of a decision dated 08.05.2015 of the Deans Committee they were to continue on the post of Assistant Professor and while so, they did not participate in selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued on 02.07.2016. Referring to the decision in Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 292 and decisions in Barinder Kaur vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, (2015) 0 Supreme (P&H) 1031 and Pradeep Navinbhai Patel and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 0 Supreme (Guj) 47, the learned Senior counsel contends that before regular appointments are made the petitioners cannot be removed from service, as it would amount to replacing one set of ad hoc employees by another set of ad hoc employees. The learned Senior counsel has further contended that appointment of the Assistant Professors pursuant to advertisement dated 02.07.2016 is in the teeth of Clause 18(6) of the Statute of the Central University of Jharkhand.
4. Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent-Central University, however, controverts the plea raised by the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners who were appointed on contractual basis, cannot claim continuance in service for indefinite period. Moreover, after the appointments were made pursuant to advertisement dated 02.07.2016, the petitioners cannot be restored to the post of Assistant Professor, on which they were appointed pursuant to advertisements issued in the year, 2011 and 2013.
5. Clause 18 (6) of the Statute of the Central University is extracted below:
18(6) Appointments to temporary posts shall be made in the manner indicated below:
(i) If the temporary vacancy is for duration longer than one academic session, it shall be filled on the advice of the Selection Committee in accordance which the procedure indicated in the foregoing clauses:
Provided that if the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that in the interests of work it is necessary to fill the vacancy, the appointment may be made on a purely temporary basis on the advice of a local Selection Committee referred to in Sub-clause (ii) for a period not exceeding six months.
(ii) If the temporary vacancy is for a period less than a year, an appointment to such vacancy shall be made on the recommendation of a local Selection Committee consisting of the Dean of the School concerned, the Head of the Department and a nominee of the Vice Chancellor:
Provided that if the same person holds the offices of the Dean and the Head of the Department, the Selection Committee may contain two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor:
Provided further that in the case of sudden casual vacancies of teaching posts caused by deat
