JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.
1. Counter and rejoinder affidavits are exchanged and. therefore, as requested and agreed by learned Counsel for the parties this writ petition has been heard and is being decided finally at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2007 whereby the Registrar. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Viklang Viswavidyalaya, Chitrakoot (hereinafter referred to as the "University") has informed the petitioner that his services would come to an end on 31.03.2007, the petitioner, Dr. Harikant Mishra has approached this Court in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order. He has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him regular salary and not to interfere in his peaceful functioning as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the University. By means of amendment, the petitioner has further challenged the order dated 31.03.2007. whereby the University-has communicated its decision to the petitioner of abolition of post held by him.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, as stated in the writ petition, are that the University has been established under U.P. Act No. 32 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in private sector for providing education to handicapped persons. It imparts higher education namely B.A. and M.A. courses in various subjects like, Philosophy. Hindi, Sanskrit, English, History Culture and Archaeology, Sociology, Drawing and Painting, Music and Political Science. It is a residential University and regular classes are conducted in all the said subjects. The petitioner was issued letter of appointment on 30.08.2001 for imparting education in the Department of Philosophy on fixed salary of Rs. 3000/-per month for the session ending on 30.04.2002. The letter of appointment (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) contains conditions of appointment stating that the appointment would commence on 01.09.2001. provided, he join on the same day. and, he shall not be entitled for any other emolument except the fixed salary of Rs. 3000/- per month. The appointment would come to an end automatically on expiry of the period for which it has been made and the petitioner shall not be treated to be an employee of the University for claiming benefits available to the employees of the University. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid appointment and joined as directed by letter of appointment dated 30.08.2001. After expiry of the aforesaid period, in continuation to the appointment letter dated 30.08.2001, the petitioner's appointment on the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy was made for the period of 01.05.2002 to 30.06.2004 vide appointment letter dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) on fixed emolument of Rs. 3500/- termed as honorarium.
4. In order to fill up the post of Lecturers in the university which included post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy, an advertisement was published in the "Employment News" dated 30.11.2002-01.12.2002 pursuant whereto the petitioner also applied but the recruitment did not proceed further and no selection was made by the University. Thereafter again another advertisement was published on 03.07.2004 in daily news paper 'Dainik Jagran' advertising one post of Lecturer in Philosophy pursuant whereto the petitioner also appeared and he was selected by the selection committee constituted by the University. The letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner on 25.10.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner pursuant to the appointment letter dated 25.10.2004 joined his services and since then he is continuously working as Lecturer in the University. All of a sudden, by means of the impugned order dated 01.03.2007 he has been informed that the project under which his appointment was made i.e. "Xth five year plan" is going to expire on 31.03.2007 and, therefore, the petitioner's services would stand terminated on 31.03.2007. It is said by the petitioner that in the advertisement there was no such fact mentioned that the post for which the advertisement was made is a post under a five year plan and, therefore, terminating the services treating the said post under said plan is wholly arbitrary. It is further averred that after expiry of Xth five year plan, as provided under Section 5(2) of the Act, the Approved Teaching staff liability was to be taken over by the State Government or the Executive Council of the University. Therefore, it could not have been assumed that the post would lapse on expiry of Xth five year plan resulting in termination of the petitioner. It is also said that though the University is unaided but it receive financial assistance from University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC") and other authorities and bodies like State Government, private bodies etc. The Department of Philosophy is still continuing to work and hence it is inconceivable that only the post which is being occupied by the petitioner has been abolished justifying his termination and, therefore, it is evident that termination of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary. Challenging the order dated 31.03.2007 it is said that the same is a manufactured document having been prepared subsequently after filing of the writ petition and. therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is also said that the students in (he Department of Philosophy are being admitted in the University for B.A. I, II and III year and M.A. I and II year courses and in the absence of any teacher of Philosophy it is inconceivable as to how these students would be imparted education by the University.
5. The respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. A separate counter affidavit has been filed replying the amended paragraphs of writ petition which have been incorporated subsequently. The case of respondents No. 3. 4 and 5 is that the University is a private body, therefore, writ petition under Article 12 of the Constitution is not maintainable. On merits, it is said that the University had taken a decision to abolish the post of Lecturers in the Department of Philosophy and Political Science and for the said purpose, letter dated 28.03.2007 has been issued by the Vice Chancellor communicating decision of Board of Governors to Registrar. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as the "Society") which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act and is established the said University. The aforesaid decision of the Board of Governors of University has been approved by the Society, as is evident from its letter dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit). The petitioner was appointed under the Scheme of UGC sanctioned under Xth five year plan and the said appointment was to continue till the life of the said plan i.e. 31.03.2007. The aforesaid fact was clearly mentioned in the appointment letter of the petitioner. It was also mentioned therein that the post may likely to continue depending upon the availability of the post and performance of the candidate. It is said that the appointment of the petitioner was more in the nature of contract depending upon certain terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the letter of appointment. He was never appointed on a permanent post nor he has a right to continue on the post of Lecturer when the post itself stood abolished after 31.03.2007. The notice dated 01.03.2007 was served upon the petitioner in the similar manner as it was served upon other Lecturers appointed under the posts created under Xth five year plan and the petitioner has not been singled out for the said purpose. Once the termination of the services of the petitioner is in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment, he cannot raise any objection thereagainst and the writ petition challenging the order of termination, therefore, is clearly misconceived. It is said that the University is neither a Central University nor Deemed University nor a State University but is a private University, though is established under the Act. It is said that with reference to para 5 (iii) of the guidelines framed by the UGC for providing financial assistance to various Universities the matter was considered by the UGC itself in view of the fact that various Universities were facing difficulty in obtaining assistance from the respective State Governments regarding taking over liability of the posts after the plan is over and vide letter dated 29.03.2004 (Annexure-CA-3), UGC gave three options to such Universities for filling up the post, approved during Xth five year plan, to safeguard the interest of the institution which are as under:
1. Assurance may be obtained from the State Government for taking over the liability of these posts after tenth plan period.
OR
2. Assurance may be given by the University through a resolution of the Executive Council to bear the burden of these posts after tenth plan OR
3. Appointment shall be made on contractual basis.
It also provides that the University may opt for any of the above three options for filling up the post. In case of contractual appointments also UGC provided that the University shall follow the requisite qualifications etc. of the posts as provided under UGC regulations. It is said that vide letter dated 31.03.2007, the University has informed UGC also about abolition of post held by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner, in his rejoinder affidavit, has said that on the one hand the University has said that Xth five year plan is over but on the other hand it has applied for financial assistance from UGC in XIth five year plan also. It is also said that the University is taking shifting stand and sometimes it says that the Department of Philosophy has been abolished and sometimes it says that only post of Lecturer in Department of Philosophy has been abolished showing that they themselves are not clear regarding the fact as to whether the department is continuing or the post of Lecturer is continuing and, therefore, no reliance has been placed on such defence. Since there was no mention in the advertisement pursuant whereto the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Lecturer that it is a post sanctioned in Xth five year plan, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to be appointed for limited period and cannot be terminated in the manner the impugned order has been passed. The appointment of the petitioner was on probation showing that it was substantive appointment and, therefore, he cannot be terminated. The letters filed by the respondents alongwith the counter affidavit with respect to abolition of post are manufactured documents and cannot be relied upon.
7. Replying the averments which have been made by the petitioner for the first time in rejoinder affidavit, a supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed by respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 wherein it is reiterated that the post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy has been abolished but the Department of Philosophy is presently continuing since some students are studying in graduation and post graduation courses and the said department would stand abolished after two years. It is also said that initially when XIth five year plan proposal was communicated to the UGC seeking financial assistance, the decision of the University with respect to abolition of post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Political Science could not be mentioned but after detecting the said mistake, a revised proposal was communicated by the University on 23.04.2007 informing that the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Political Science have been abolished and in the revised proposal no financial assistance has been sought for the said posts.
8. In the counter affidavit replying the amended paragraphs of the writ petition respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 have denied the allegations of manipulation of the documents with respect to its decision of abolition of posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Political Science and in para 9 thereof it is clearly stated that the University would not admit any new student for the session 2007-08 in the aforesaid departments.
9. The petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder affidavit replying supplementary counter affidavit as well as to the counter affidavit filed to the amended paragraphs of the writ petition.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to urge that he was appointed on probation after a regular selection on the post of Assistant Professor, and he has already completed the period of probation, therefore, his services could not have been terminated by means of the impugned order and the same is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Me further contended that since in the advertisement, pursuant to which he had applied and was selected, there was no mention of the fact that the post in question was sanctioned in Xth five year plan and has limited life, the respondents cannot subsequently claim that the said post was a planned post and would come to an end on a particular date when the said plan would end. Referring to the fact that the students were still continuing education in the Department of Philosophy and are pursuing their courses in the University, it is said that it is incorrect to suggest that there is no requirement of a teacher in the Department of Philosophy till the existing students are pursuing their course and, therefore, termination of petitioner's services on 31.03.2007 is illegal.
11. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 3. 4 and 5 has reiterated its stand taken in the counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit.
12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and the authorities cited at the Bar.
13. At the outset it would be appropriate to mention that since the University in question is governed by the Act and the statutes framed thereunder, during the course of final hearing, learned Counsel for the respondents has not stressed upon its preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and, therefore, we are not required to record our opinion with respect to the aforesaid preliminary objection. Since arguments have been advanced on the merits of the issue, therefore, we are deciding this writ petition on merits.
14. In order to ascertain the right of the petitioner, nature of his appointment and the conditions on which he was appointed, it is necessary to be look into the letters of appointment issued to the petitioner. Initially he was appointed vide order dated 30.08.2001 which says that he is being appointed in the Department of Philosophy for the purpose of teaching, on monthly salary of Rs. 3000/- for the current session up to 30.04.2002. The appointment commenced on 01.09.2001 and was subject to the following conditions:
1 No other emoluments except the consolidated pay of Rs. 3000/- would be admissible.
2 Appointment would automatically come to an end on expiry of the period.
3 The petitioner shall not be an employee of the University and would not be entitled for other benefits available to the employees of the University.
15. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid conditions and submitted his joining. On the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter dated 30.08.2001 his appointment was extended vide letter dated 25.07.2002 from 01.05.2002 to 30.06.2004 but his emoluments were revised to Rs. 3500/- per month termed as 'honorarium'. Thereafter when the vacancy of Lecturer in Philosophy was advertised and the petitioner participated in the selection thereafter the appointment letter was issued on 25.10.2004 by the Vice Chancellor of the University which contains the following conditions of appointment, besides other,:
7. His appointment to the post is to be for X-Plan, but likely to be continued depending upon the performance of the candidate and availability of post.
8. He/She will be on probation at least for one year.
16. The petitioner thus was well aware that the post is under Xth plan and is likely to be continued depending upon performance of the candidate and availability of post. It is not in dispute that Xth plan came to an end on 31.03.2007 as a result whereof the post in question held by the petitioner also ceased on the said date i.e. 31.03.2007. In the XIth plan the University initially, in its proposal recommended one post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy vide letter dated March, 2007 but subsequently a revised proposal sent by the University vide letter dated 23.04.2007 wherein it was mentioned that the governing body of the University has decided to abolish the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Departments of Philosophy and Political Science and, therefore, the same was not incorporated in the proposal.
17. Two things, therefore, emerge from the aforesaid facts. Firstly, the petitioner's appointment was tenure based, limited for Xth plan, and. secondly, it is the specific case of the University that the post in question has been abolished and the University has not recommended for sanction of financial assistance for the post of Lecturer in Philosophy Department to UGC in XIth plan, and thus could not have been contradicted by the petitioner by placing any material providing otherwise.
18. The logical inference is that the post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy has been abolished after 31.03.2007. Now the question required to be considered, is, firstly, when the appointment of the petitioner was on specific conditions and time bound, whether he had a right to seek a writ of mandamus commanding University to allow him to continue in service on the post of Lecturer, and, secondly, whether the decision of University to abolish the post in any manner is vitiated in law, and thirdly, what is the scope of judicial review in respect to the right of the employer of abolition of post.
19. Considering the second and third questions first, in our view, the power of employer to abolish the post is inherent, and, is a policy decision in the interest of necessity of internal administration. Creation or abolition of post is a matter of policy decision based on exigencies of circumstances and administrative necessity. The scope of judicial review in the matter of abolition of post is limited only to the extent whether the decision for abolition of post has been taken in good faith or is arbitrary or mala fide or as a mask of some penal action.
20. Considering the right of the Government, as employer, with respect to abolition of post and the consequential termination of service, the Apex Court in N. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Anr. of the judgment held:
36. The abolition of post may have the consequence of termination of service of a government servant. Such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not therefore arise in the case of abolition of post. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the government servant. The abolition of post is an executive policy decision. Whether after abolition of the post the Government servant who was holding the post would or could be offered any employment under the State would therefore be a matter of policy decision of the Government because the abolition of post does not confer on the person holding the abolished post any right to hold the post.
21. In State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar and Anr. the Court said:
Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. As long as such decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by the court. It is not open to the court to go behind the wisdom of the decision and substitute its own opinion for that of the Government on the point as to whether a post should or should not be abolished.
22. The aforesaid view was reiterated in K. Rajendran and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. . In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India and Ors. considering the argument that abolition of pot and resultant termination causes not only loss in earning livelihood but also cut short the tenure and, therefore, is punitive in nature, the Apex Court rejecting the submission observed that such loss is not unknown in a service career and is one of the exigencies of employment. The creation and abolition of post is the prerogative of the executive. The power to create the posts is unfettered and so also is the power to reduce or abolish them. Recently in Avas Vikas Sansthan and Anr. v. Avas Vikas Sansthan Engineers Assn. and Ors. of the judgement the Court held:
...It is settled law that the power to abolish any civil post is inherent in every sovereign Government and such abolition will not entail any right on the person holding the abolished post the right to re-employment or to hold the same post.
It is well settled that the power to abolish a post which may result in the holder thereof ceasing to be a Government Servant has got to be recognized. The measure of economy and the need for streamlining the administration to make it more efficient may induce any State Government to make alterations in the staffing pattern of the civil services necessitating either the increase or the decrease in the number of posts or abolish the post. In such an event, a Department which was abolished or abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the Court cannot, by a writ of mandamus, direct the employer to continue employing such employees as have been dislodged.
23. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Navneet Verma (Appeal (Civil) No. 5064 of 2007) decided on 31.10.2007 the Apex Court after referring to N. Ramanatha Pillai (Supra) and Avas Vikas Sansthan (Supra) culled out certain principles with respect to power of Government for abolition of post and the role of the Court warranting interference as under:
We summarize the power of government in abolishing a post and role of the court for interference:
a) the power to create or abolish a post rests with the government;
b) whether a particular post is necessary is a matter depending upon the exigencies of the situation and administrative necessity;
c) creation and abolition of posts is a matter of government policy and every sovereign government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration;
d) creation, continuance and abolition of posts are all decided by the government in the interest of administration and general public;
e) the court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from malafide, legal or factual;
f) as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted.
24. The petitioner has sought to challenge the decision of the University for abolition of post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy on the ground that the said decision has been taken with ulterior motive, to frustrate the rightful claim of the petitioner, and the documents are manufactured. The allegations are contained in para 35-A which has been added by way of an amendment in the writ petition and the affidavit in support of para 35-A has been sworn on the basis of record. The allegations are absolutely vague and has not been substantiated by proper pleadings and material, therefore, cannot be accepted. Moreover, the University has placed material on record showing that the decision has not been taken only with respect to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy but also in respect to the Department of Political Science. Therefore, it is wrong to contend that the petitioner has been singled out for abolition of post of Lecturer and while other posts of Lecturer have been retained or the efforts are made to continue them, the post held by petitioner has only been abolished. In any case it is an inherent right of the employer. It is always open to the University to decide as to which course it intent to run in the University and no employee can insist upon the University to continue a post for the purpose of providing employment to him.
25. In the case in hand, however, looking deeper in the matter, we find that it is not a case as such of abolition of post by a positive decision of the University but in fact a post which was created for a fixed tenure has ceased to continue on expiry of the said tenure and thus it is a case of cessation of a post on expiry of the period for which it was created. After the expiry of the said period the post created for fixed term automatically came to an end and now it is a question of creation of a post for the subsequent period. Since the post has come to an end, the logical consequence is that the holder of the post would also go and cannot continue in service in the absence of the post. Whether the post should be created for the subsequent period is again a matter of executive policy and within the realm of administrative authorities. The Courts in this matter should not interfere since it involves several aspects of the matter and unless there is sufficient material to show that the authorities are acting with mala fide, in our view, no judicial interference is called for.
26. The petitioner, in effect, has required this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents to create a post. We are afraid that such a mandamus cannot be issued to the University. In Union of India and Ors. v. Tejram Parashramji Bombhate and Ors. , the Apex Court held that the Court or a Tribunal has no power to compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure and to direct creation of any post. Following the aforesaid authority, in Gyan Prakash v. Union of India the Court said:
...What the petitioner, in effect wants this Court to do is to issue a writ directing the creation of post in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, Such a direction cannot in our opinion be given.
27. Therefore, in taking the view that for creation of post this Court cannot issue a direction we are fortified with the aforesaid authorities of the Apex Court and hence the relief as sought by the petitioner which is of the same effect, in our view, cannot be granted.
28. Now coming to the validity of the termination as we have already observed, the termination of an employee as a result of abolition of post is the normal consequence and cannot be said to be either a dismissal or removal. In N. Ramanatha Pillai (Supra) the Apex Court also took the same view and held that such termination being normal consequence of abolition of post is not a dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court also held that the right to hold a post comes to an end on the abolition of post, which the Government servant holds and he cannot complain thereafter violation of Articles 19(1)(f), 14 and 31 of the Constitution unless it is shown that the decision has been taken mala fide or as a masked penal action.
29. In the present case the appointment letter of the petitioner specifically mention that his appointment is being made on the post under Xth plan. The continuance, however, depends upon the performance of the candidate as well as availability of post. It is not in dispute that Xth plan ended on 31.03.2007 and thus the post of Lecturer held by the petitioner also lapsed on the said said. The appointment of the petitioner for the period subsequent thereto would depend upon the availability of post. It is evident that the University has taken a positive decision not to create the post of Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy, besides others with which we are not concerned, and, therefore, has not taken any steps for creation of such post. In the absence of the post the petitioner has no right to claim continuance in service.
30. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition which in effect only informs the petitioner about the consequences flowing from the aforesaid facts though has the effect of terminating his services but in the absence of any post available after 31.03.2007 the termination of the petitioner is fait acompli and being an exigency of the circumstances, he cannot seek any interference from the Court for continuance in service,
31. Some arguments have sought to be advanced in order to show that the action of the University is mala fide, but, besides other, the very first obstacle in considering the above submission is that no one has been impleaded eonomine against whom mala fide is levelled. It is well settled that the plea of mala fide can neither be entertained nor shall be permitted to be raised in the absence of a person against whom such allegations are made.
32. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 in para 55 of the judgment, the Apex Court held:
It is a settled law that the person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded economize as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly, both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded. On this ground alone the High Court should have stopped enquiry into the allegation of mala fides or bias alleged against them.
33. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court 326, J.N. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi in para 21 of the judgment, it has been held as under:
Further in the absence of impleadment of the...the person who had allegedly passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor, any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. malice in fact should not be countenanced by the Court.
34. In , A.I.S.B. Officers Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in para 23, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said where a person, who has passed the order and against whom the plea of mala fide has been taken has not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide. The relevant observation of the Apex Court relevant are reproduced as under:
The person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding. Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot he allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit.
35. In , Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India it has been held as under:
That allegations regarding mala fides cannot be vaguely made and it must be specified and clear. In this context, the concerned Minister who is stated to be involved in the formation of new Zone at Hazipur is not made a party who can meet the allegations.
36. Secondly, even otherwise the allegations are very scatchy and vague. We do not find sufficient material supporting the contention of the petitioner that the action of the University is mala fide particularly when it has been taken by the governing body of the University which consists of a number of persons and it is not the case of the petitioner that all of them or most of them, in any manner are biased against the petitioner. Moreover, no reason for such alleged biased is pleaded or is available on record.
37. The appointment of the petitioner thus being coterminous with the post which was to continue up to Xth plan and the same having ended on 31.03.2007, it is evident that it was a temporary appointment made for a fixed period. In Union of India and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and Ors. in almost somewhat similar circumstances, it was held:
...The extra work being limited in duration, such posts are created for a fixed period and carry a fixed pay. Once the period specified is over, these posts are abolished and the temporary staff appointed against these temporary posts is disengaged....
38. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006(4) SCC 1 has taken the same view and held that an appointment made for limited period is liable to be terminated in terms of the conditions of appointment.
39. We, therefore, are clearly of the view that the nature of the appointment, the terms and conditions of appointment, and other material on record show that there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the orders impugned in the present writ petition and the petitioner's services have rightly been ceased on 31.03.2007. Therefore, there is no occasion to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to function as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy of University and to pay salary.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.