Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.D.Koshal, S.S.Sandhawalia and Prem Chand Jain JJ.
Guru Nanak University
Versus
Iqbal Kaur Sandhu
Letter Patent Appeal No. 189 of,
Civil MISCELLANEOUS No. 1213 of 1975,
Decided On : MAY 17, 1975
The Guru Nanak University Act, 1969, Sec. 10(5), 19, 31(2) - Guru Nanak University Calendar, Statute 31(2) - Whether Statute 31(2) framed by the Guru Nanak University has been substantially complied with and if not so, whether the provisions thereof are mandatory or directory in character ? - Held, that the provisions of Statute 31(2) are directory in nature and are intended primarily for the benefit and assistance of the appointing authority in order to enable it adequately to discharge its function for the assessment of the work and conduct of its probationer-employees. These are patently procedural provisions for laying down a suitable norm and mode for doing so in a large organisation like the Guru Nanak University. In our view these provisions are intended primarily for the benefit and use of the employer without conferring any vested right therein on the probationer-employee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-respondent was appointed as Secretary Sports (Women) in the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar, on probation for a period of one year. Vide Annexure M dated 4.04.1972, the petitioner-respondent was informed that the Syndicate had approved her appointment in the pay scale above mentioned and her starting pay was to be determined by the Vice-Chancellor and she was directed to see him in this connection. Later, by a communication dated 4.05.1972 (Annexure `N ), she was further informed that the Vice-Chancellor had been pleased to fix her starting salary at Rs. 600.00 per mensem plus allowances under the University Rules and it was categorically mentioned therein that her appointment would be on probation for a period of one year and her services would be governed under the rules and regulations of the University. In pursuance to the above, the petitioner-respondent joined in the port above mentioned as a probationer on 22.07.1972. However, she represented later that in September she was imminently due to get her next increment at Delhi University when she joined her present post and therefore, prayed that her salary be fixed at Rs. 640.00. This prayer, after consideration, was allowed by the University in accordance with the current rules and practice.
Finding of the Court:
The core of the matter here has to be viewed primarily in the particular context of sub-clause (3) of Statute 31, which, therefore, must be set down in extenso for facility of reference:- "If, during his period of probation, the work and conduct of an employee is in the opinion of the appointing authority not satisfactory, it may dispense with his services or revert him to his former post, if any, or extend the period of probation and thereafter pass such orders as would have been passed by it on the expire of the first period of probation provided that the total period of probation including extension, if any, shall not exceed three years if there is a permanent vacancy against which the employee can be confirmed. If it is decided to dispense with the service of any employee, it shall not be necessary to serve a notice on the employee for the termination of his service."
Issues: Whether Statute 31(2) framed by the Guru Nanak University has been substantially complied with and if not so, whether the provisions thereof are mandatory or directory in character ?
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Statute 31(2) are directory in nature and are intended primarily for the benefit and assistance of the appointing authority in order to enable it adequately to discharge its function for the assessment of the work and conduct of its probationer-employees. These are patently procedural provisions for laying down a suitable norm and mode for doing so in a large organisation like the Guru Nanak University. In our view these provisions are intended primarily for the benefit and use of the employer without conferring any vested right therein on the probationer-employee.
Final Decision: Letters Patent Appeal allowed and the writ petition dismissed with costs throughout.
1. The spinal issue which necessitated a reference to the Full Bench in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is - Whether Statute 31 (2) framed by the Guru Nanak University has been substantially complied with and if not so, whether the provisions thereof are mandatory or directory in character ?
2. A detailed reference to the facts of the case has now indeed become inevitable. However at the very outset, it deserves notice that the matter herein is essentially simple. It revolves around the twin refusal (on 16.06.1973 and 13.10.1974) of the Syndicate of the Guru Nanak University to confirm the petitioner in the post of Secretary Sports (Women) against which she had been appointed on probation for a period of one year.
3. It is not in dispute that Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Sandhu, petitioner-respondent, had a reasonably distinguished career in the narrow and limited field of the women s sports at the University and later at an All India level. She also secured a Ph.D. Degree in Physical Education and had considerable opportunities to travel abroad in connection with her profession. However, as the learned Counsel for the appellant-University rightly pointed out the issue of these qualifications is hardly relevant to the legal controversy with which alone this Court is concerned. Therefore, any detailed reference to the same becomes unnecessary.
4. It suffices to mention that at the material time in 1972, the petitioner-respondent was employed as Assistant Directress of Physical Education in the University of Delhi in the pay scale of Rs. 400-40-800-50-950 at a basic salary of Rs. 600.00 per mensem. On her application, she was selected as Secretary Sports (Women) in the Guru Nanak University, Amritsar, and was apparently motivated to secure this assignment because of the fact that her husband Mr. M.S. Sandhu was already employed as the Head of the Sports Department in the appellant-University. Vide Annexure M dated 4.04.1972, the petitioner-respondent was informed that the Syndicate had approved her appointment in the pay scale above mentioned and her starting pay was to be determined by the Vice-Chancellor and she was directed to see him in this connection. Later, by a communication dated 4.05.1972 (Annexure `N ), she was further informed that the Vice-Chancellor had been pleased to fix her starting salary at Rs. 600.00 per mensem plus allowances under the University Rules and it was categorically mentioned therein that her appointment would be on probation for a period of one year and her services would be governed under the rules and regulations of the University. In pursuance to the above, the petitioner-respondent joined in the port above mentioned as a probationer on 22.07.1972. However, she represented later that in September she was imminently due to get her next increment at Delhi University when she joined her present post and therefore, prayed that her salary be fixed at Rs. 640.00. This prayer, after consideration, was allowed by the University in accordance with the current rules and practice.
5. It is the case of the appellant-University that the post against which the petitioner-respondent was appointed was primarily administrative in nature and required peculiar talents which were lacking in her and she was hence unable to measure up to the job. The Petitioner-respondent continued to serve indifferently as a probationer and it was around 29.03.1973, that the establishment branch of the appellant-University initiated the case for her confirmation as she was due to complete her probationary period by 21.07.1973. In Annexure R-1/1, which is the relevant document, the office-note indicated the above mentioned facts and it was observed that the confirmation of the petitioner-respondent was to be done by the Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor might wish to include the case in the agenda of the Syndicate meeting to be held on 16.06.1973 with his recommendations. The office communication passed through the hand
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
