Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 802
2009(1) JLJ 266
Subhash Samvatsar and A.P. Shrivastava, JJ.
Sanjeev Yadav v. Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical
Education and others
Writ Appeal No.390 of 2006 with 395 of 2006 (Gwalior): against the
order of Single Bench, passed in Writ Petitions No.3417 and 3887 of
2005, reported in 2006(3) JLJ 386; Decided on 31.7.2008.
H.D. Gupta with S.K. Gupta for appellants in Writ Appeal No.390/2006;
Pawan Dwivedi for appellant in Writ Appeal No.395/2006;
Anoop Chaudhary with Anil Sharma for respondents.
Headnote:Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (Gwalior) Rules -- Rr.5(a)(iii) and 12 -- selection of Lecturers on recommendation of selection committee -- all members of selection committee from panel -- selection not challenged on ground of incompetence of candidates or qualification, etc. -- Lecturers duly worked for three and a half years n cannot be removed even if selection committee was not constituted as per rules.
In pursuance of the directions issued by Division Bench in the above PIL, said Rajendra Tayal submitted a representation to the institution and higher authorities for cancellation of appointments. Said representation was considered by the Board of Management in its meeting dated 30th May 2005 and the Board of Management found that the selection committee was not properly constituted. The selection committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor was contrary to the rules of the institution and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the appellant-petitioners on 31.5.2002. The appellant-petitioners, after service of the show cause notice, requested the Board of Management to supply certain documents. However, those documents were never supplied. The appellant petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice and the Board of Management after considering their reply has found that the selection committee was contrary to rule 23 of the MOA, hence, terminated the appointments of the appellant-petitioners. [Para 5
Held : The selection process is not challenged by any of the candidates and the appointments of the appellant-petitioners are cancelled by the management itself, that too, after lapse of about three and a half years. No objection to the selection process was taken by any of the candidates nor the management. One Rajendra Tayal who filed the PIL was not even a staff member of the institute nor he was connected, in any manner, to the selection process. He had filed the PIL only as a social worker.
It is pertinent to point out that all the members who had participated in the selection process were from the panel prepared for that purpose. All the members were inducted by the then Vice-Chancellor and there are no allegations that these persons were not qualified to be the members of the selection committee or have acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Institute.
In the present case, the Vice-Chancellor himself had constituted the selection committee and the members who were within the knowledge about the defect in the selection committee have slept over the matter for about three and half years after appointments were made. Thus, the members have acquiesced themselves and have no right to challenge the appointments on the ground of selection when the appellant-petitioners, who are candidates from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, have got their appointments and altered their position by leaving other jobs available to them.
Hence, we allow the writ appeals filed by the appellants, set aside the impugned orders and allow the writ petitions filed by the appellant-petitioners by quashing the order of termination of their services and direct to reinstate the appellant-petitioners in service forthwith with full back wages. 2002(2) JLJ 391 and Writ Petition No.839/2003 distinguished. AIR 2002 SC 2322 followed. 2006(3) JLJ 386 reversed.
[Paras 20, 21, 24 & 26
y{ehckbZ jk"Vªh; ‘kkjhfjd f‘k{kk laLFkku ¼Xokfy;j½ fu;e && fu-5¼d½(iii) rFkk 12 && p;u lfefr ds flQkfj‘k ij izk/;kidksa dk p;u && p;u lfefr ds lHkh lnL; iSuy esa ls fy, x, && p;u ij vk{ksi vH;fFkZ;ksa dh v{kerk vFkok vgZrk vkfn ds vk/kkj ij ugha && izk/;kidksa us lk<+s rhu o"kZ rd lE;d~:is.k dk;Z fd;k && p;u lfefr fu;ekuqlkj xfBr ugha dh xbZ gks rc Hkh mUgsa gVk;k ugha tk ldrkA
mi;qZDr yksdfgr eqdnesa esa [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk tkjh fd, x, funs‘kksa ds vuqlj.k esa mDr jktsUnz rky; us laLFkku vkSj mPprj izkf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k fu;qfDr;ksa ds jn~ndj.k ds fy, vH;kosnu fd;kA mDr vkosnu ij izca/keaMy }kjk viuh cSBd fnukad 30 ebZ 2005 esa fopkj fd;k x;k rFkk izca/keaMy dk fu"d"kZ Fkk fd p;u lfefr mfpr :i ls xfBr ugha FkhA dqyifr }kjk xfBr p;u lfefr laLFkku ds fu;eksa ds fo:) Fkh vkSj blfy, 31-5-2002 dks vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh dh xbZA dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dh rkehy ds Ik‘pkr~ vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k us izca/keaMy ls dfri; nLrkost iznk; djus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA rFkkfr og nLrkost dHkh Hkh iznk; ugha fd, x,A vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k us dkj.k crkvks lwpuk dk viuk mRrj Qkby fd;k rFkk izca/keaMy us muds mRrj dk fopkj djus ds Ik‘pkr~ fu"d"kZ fudkyk fd p;u lfefr , vks , ds fu;e 23 ds fo:) Fkh] vr% vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k dh fu;qfDr;k¡ lekIr dj nh xbZA ¼iSjk 5
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % p;u izfdz;k ij fdlh Hkh vH;FkhZ }kjk vk{ksi ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k dh fu;qfDr;ka¡ Lo;a izca/keaMy }kjk jn~n dh xbZ gS] og Hkh yxHkx lk<+s rhu o"kZ O;ixr gksus ds Ik‘pkr~A fdlh&Hkh vH;FkhZ vFkok izca/keaMy }kjk p;u izfdz;k ij dksbZ vkifRrRr ugha dh xbZ gSA ftl jktsUnz rk;y us yksdfgr eqdnek Qkby fd;k Fkk og laLFkku dk deZpkfjo`an lnL; Hkh ugha Fkk] u og fdlh Hkh izdkj ls p;u izfdz;k ls lacaf/kr gh FkkA mlus dsoy lkekftd dk;ZdrkZ ds :i esa yksdfgr eqdnek Qkby fd;k FkkA
;g crkuk izklkafxd gS fd p;u izfdz;k esa ftu lnL;ksa us Hkkx fy;k Fkk og ml iz;kstu ds fy, rS;kj fd, x, iSuy esa ls fy, x, FksA lHkh lnL; rRdkyhu dqyifr }kjk fy, x, Fks rFkk ,slk dksbZ vfHkdFku ugha gS fd ;g O;fDr p;u lfefr ds lnL; gksus ds fy, vgZ ugha Fks vFkok mUgksus ,slh jhfr ls dk;Z fd;k gS ftlls laLFkku dk fgr izfrdwyr% izHkkfor gksA
izLrqr ekeys esa Lo;a dqyifr us p;u lfefr xfBr dh Fkh rFkk ftu lnL;ksa dks p;u lfefr esa =qfV dh tkudkjh Fkh og fu;qfDr;k¡ fd, tkus ds Ik‘pkr~ yxHkx lk<+s rhu o"kZ rd bl ekeys esa fuf"dz; jgsA vr% lnL;ksa us viuh miefr nh gS rFkk mUgsa p;u ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr;ksa ij vk{ksi djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS tcfd vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k dh] tks e/; izns‘k jkT; ds ckgj ds vH;FkhZ gS] fu;qfDr;k¡ gks xbZ gSa vkSj mUgksaus miyC/k vU; ukSdfj;k¡ NksM+ dj viuh fLFkfr esa ifjorZu dj fy;k gSA
vr%] ge vihykFkhZx.k }kjk Qkby dh xbZ fjV vihysa eatwj djrs gSa] vkf{kIr vkns‘k vikLr djrs gSa rFkk mudh lsok&lekfIr dk vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr dj vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k }kjk Qkby dh xbZ fjV ;kfpdk,a eatwj djrs gSa vkSj vihykFkhZ&;kphx.k dks laiw.kZ fiNyh etnwjh ds lkFk lsok esa vfoyac iqu% LFkkfir djus dk funs‘k nsrs gSaA 2002¼2½ ts ,y ts 391 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk dz-839@2003 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 2322 vuqlfjrA 2006¼3½ ts ,y ts 386 myVk x;kA ¼iSjk 20] 21] 24 rFkk 26
Samvatsar, J. -- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of both the writ appeals as they arise out of the common order dated 9th October, 2006 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petitions No.3417/05 and 3887/05 whereby the Single Bench has dismissed both the aforesaid writ petitions filed by petitioners, appellants herein challenging their termination orders.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Lakshmibai College of Physical Education, Gwalior was established on 17.8.1957 by the then President of India S. Radhakrishnan with a total strength of 27 students in Bachelor of Physical Education. At that time, the said college was affiliated to Vikram University, Ujjain. In the year 1963, two years Master Degree Course in Physical Education was commenced and in the year 1964, it was granted national status and renamed as Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education. On 2.9.1995, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, on the recommendations of University Grant Commission granted the status of deemed University to the said college and renamed it as "Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education, Gwalior" (LNIPE). Subsequently, the college was transferred to a society constituted on 24.4.2001 called as Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education Society and for regulating the functions of the said society, Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the society was formulated. It is also averred that the norms of University Grant Commission (UGC) are also binding on the said Institution.
3. The institution wanted to fill up some posts of Lecturers, hence, permission was sought to appoint lecturers by relaxing the ban on appointment. Said permission was granted to the institution. An advertisement was issued on 28.3.2000 calling for applications for filling up the posts of lecturers. However, no appointments could be made in pursuance of the said advertisement. Second advertisement (Annexure P10) was issued on 6.12.2001. It was mentioned in the second advertisement that the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the previous advertisement were also eligible for participating in the said selection. Appellants-writ petitioners and other candidates had applied for the post of lecturers. Their applications were considered and they were called for interview by the selection committee. On 17.3.2002 interviews were held and the present appellants were selected.
4. On public interest litigation (WP No.450/02) was filed by one Rajendra Tayal who was a social worker and who was totally stranger to the institution, challenging the appointments made by the institution. Said PIL was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.4.2004 in following terms:
"Petitioner shall submit a representation to the respondent No.3 Board of Management modifying the prayer claimed by him and raising necessary grievances alongwith copy of this petition. Respondent No.3 Board of Management shall consider the representation and after hearing the affected party shall decide the representation within a period of six months from the date of submission of the representation. However, any of the parties aggrieved with the action of respondent No.3 will have a remedy to approach the appropriate forum against the decision of the Board of Management. A copy of the report be sent to the Registrar of this Court for compliance."
5. In pursuance of the directions issued by Division Bench in the above PIL, said Rajendra Tayal submitted a representation to the institution and higher authorities for cancellation of appointments. Said representation was considered by the Board of Management in its meeting dated 30th May 2005 and the Board of Management found that the selection committee was not properly constituted. The selection committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor was contrary to the rules of the institution and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the appellant-petitioners on 31.5.2002. The appe
