JUDGMENT

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

The petitioner, Dr. Nakli Singh, has challenged his non-re-employment by the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (‘the University' for short), after his retirement from the said University. He is aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2020 whereby his representation to re-employ him on the post of Professor (Zoology) in the University has been rejected.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that, on 09.01.1980, the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the said University. On 01.01.1986, he was promoted as the Senior Lecturer. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Reader. Subsequently, on 09.06.2001, he was promoted on the post of Professor in the Zoology Department. Since the petitioner was born on 03.12.1955, by office order dated 26.06.2020, the Registrar of the University informed the petitioner that he is due to retire on 31.12.2020. Since the petitioner was scheduled to retire in the middle of the academic year, on 25.11.2020, he submitted a representation wherein he prayed that the benefit of continuation of his services till 30.06.2021 should be granted to him. According to the petitioner, initially, he was appointed in the State University, as the University existed at the relevant time as a State University. Subsequently, on 15.01.2009, the University was upgraded to a Central University under the Central Universities Act, 2009 (‘the Act, 2009' for short). According to Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 the same terms and conditions which were prevalent prior to upgrading the University into the Central University, would continue even after the upgradation of the University into the Central University. Moreover, Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, 1978 (the Rules relating to the State University), clearly stipulated that, in case a teacher were to retire in middle of the academic year, his services will continue till the end of the academic session and he/she will be treated as a re-employed person. However, by order dated 02.12.2020, the petitioner's representation was rejected by the University. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application before the Chancellor of the University on 03.12.2020. However, by e-mail dated 04.12.2020, the said application was also rejected by the Chancellor. Hence, the present Writ Petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in the State University, which was subsequently upgraded into the Central University under the Act, 2009. According to Section 4(d) of the Act, every teacher employed by the University immediately before the commencement of the Act, will continue on the same tenure, at the same remuneration, and upon the same terms and conditions, and

with the same rights and privileges as to pension, leave, gratuity, provident fund and other matters as he would have held the same if the Act, 2009 was not enacted. Such a person would continue to do so until and unless his terms and conditions are “duly altered by the Statutes".

Secondly, Para 17.15 of the First Statute of the University of H.N.B. Garhwal, the provision clearly stated that those teachers who would retire in middle of the academic session will continue till the end of the academic session. But continuation of their service would be treated as re4 employment from the date immediately following the superannuation till the end of the academic session. Thus, according to him, the combination of both the provisions clearly bestowed a right upon the petitioner to continue his services till the end of the academic session. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the petitioner's representation in a cavalier manner.

Thirdly, relying on the case of Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal & others vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, (2020 SCC Online SC 846),