University cannot selectively retain one employee and terminate others.

The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order bearing reference Proc.No.EI (2)452/2000 dated 18.08.2003 issued by the first respondent and to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate her with all attendant benefits including seniority and monetary benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner is a Computer Science graduate. Based on the advertisement dated 27.08.2000 issued by the respondent University calling for applications for the post of Programmer with the break up of reservation being one post each for OC, SC and BC categories, she applied for the same. By the letter dated 111. 2000 of the respondent University, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Programmer and she joined duty on 211. 2000 with time scale of pay fixed at Rs.8000-275-13500. She was granted two increments and Provident Fund contributions were also deducted from her salary. While so, she was terminated from service by an order dated 18.08.2003 passed by the first respondent even without being given an opportunity of hearing. The reason attributed to her termination is that the Telemedicine Project for which she was temporarily appointed was discontinued. The petitioner immediately issued a legal notice to the respondent University referring to the newspaper advertisement, order of appointment fixing her in time scale of pay and also pointed out that out of three employees namely, Poongothai, Shanthi and the petitioner herself, Poongothai has been retained in service and Shanthi and herself have been terminated showing selective discrimination. Since there was no response to the legal notice, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

3. The main grounds of attack in this writ petition are that:

a. the petitioner was not appointed in service against any particular project / scheme according to the Notification dated 28.07.2000 and as such, her services cannot be terminated without any prior notice or hearing as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Medical University Act, 1987 (in short “the Act”) and without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

.b. increments had been granted to the petitioner, P.F. deductions had also been made and the other candidate appointed along with her continues to remain in service and this being the case, the petitioner cannot be selectively discriminated.

.c. the impugned order is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. In the counter, it is contended that the respondent University entered into an agreement in September 2000 with one Medical Centre Boston International, U.S.A. for starting a Telemedicine Project and since the project was not cost-effective and the person in-charge in the U.S.A. also had closed down the project, it was decided by the Governing Council of the University to wind up the project and to terminate the services of the temporary staff appointed for the Telemedicine Project and accordingly, the petitioner and another employee by name Shanthi were terminated.

5. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that when there was no whisper either in the Notification for appointment or in the appointment order of the petitioner that the appointment is against a particular project, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner, that too, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing as per the provisions of the Act, is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has further contended that when the petitioner’s salary has been fixed on time-scale of pay and she had been given increments and even Provident Fund deductions have been made from her salary, the impugned action of the respondent University in terminating the petitioner from servi