Court No. - 33
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 726 of 2019 Appellant :- C/M Durga Prasad Baljeet Singh (P.G) College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Dixit,Utkarsh Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Rai,Krishan Pahal Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Shri.Munesh Kumar Sharma and Ashish Kumar on behalf of the respondent no.3 and supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants are taken on record.
Heard Shri.Sudhir Dixit for the appellants; learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1; Shri.Ashish Kumar for respondent no.3; and Shri.Krishan Pahal for respondent no.2.
This intra court appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.5.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.7866 of 2019.
The petitioner (respondent no.3 herein) filed Writ-A No.7866 of 2019 questioning the validity of order dated 26.4.2019, by which the Secretary of the Committee of Management of Durga Prasad Baljeet Singh (P.G.) College, Bulandshahr (Appellant herein) communicated the resolve of the Committee of Management to terminate the services of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor with immediate effect.
The petitioner had assailed the order dated 26.4.2019 on the ground that the order of termination cannot be immediately given effect as Section 35 (2) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and Statute 17.06 (3) of the First Statutes of the University required prior approval of the Vice Chancellor before termination order could be given effect.
It appears that the order to terminate the services of the petitioner was passed on grounds that the degree of M.Sc. in Microbiology set up by the petitioner was invalid and that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory.
The learned Single Judge upon statement made by counsel for the University that approval of the Vice Chancellor was necessary before an order of termination could be given effect disposed of the writ petition by providing that the second respondent in the writ petition, namely, Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, shall take decision in the matter relating to termination of service of the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner (respondent no.3 herein) and the Committee of Management (Appellant herein) in accordance with law within a specified period. It was further provided that the order of termination would not become effective till it is approved by the Vice Chancellor. Hence, the order of termination was to remain in abeyance till a decision is taken by the Vice Chancellor. It was also provided that the petitioner would be entitled to continue to work in the institution in the interregnum.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was under a self financed course and, therefore, the approval of the Vice Chancellor was not required. It has also been urged that since the selection of the writ petitioner was based on a degree of M.Sc. Micro Biology, the selection as well as appointment stood vitiated once the degree was found invalid. It has also been contended that the order of the learned Single Judge has been passed ex-parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the Committee of Management as no notice of the proceedings was served upon the appellant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has invited the attention of the Court to page 109 of the paper book so as to demonstrate that even in case of appointments under the self financed scheme, before termination, the approval of the Vice Chancellor is required.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to dispute the aforesaid position. He has also not been able to point out whether in absence of possessing valid degree of M.Sc. Microbiology the appointee lacked essential qualification for appointment on the post so as to render his appointment void.
Under these circumstances, since the order of termination of service required prior approval of the Vice Chancellor, which has not yet been provided, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly, when the learned single judge has already issued direction to the Vice Chancellor to take decision after hearing both the writ petitioner and the Committee of Management (appellant herein).
The special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date:-4.6.2019-SB