Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25071 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Neeraj Tripathi,Rijwan Ali Akhtar
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Dr. Surendra Kumar Yadav, the petitioner who has appeared in person, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 and Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent no.
6. The matter has proceeded ex-parte against the respondent no. 4 pursuant to the Court's earlier order dated 9.1.2019 as despite service of notice, none has put an appearance on its behalf.
The petitioner was working as Reader/Associate Professor teaching Environmental Science at Sir Chhotu Ram Institute of Engineering and Technology, Choudhary Charan Singh University Campus, Meerut on contract for 11 months, which had been extended from time to time. His services as a contract teacher were dispensed with by the order of the Director, Sir Chhotu Ram Institute of Engineering and Technology, Choudhary Charan Singh University Campus, Meerut (respondent no. 4) dated 12.6.2017 with the approval of the Vice Chancellor, Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, U.P (respondent no. 3) in light of the Government Order dated 4.2.2000. The petitioner represented to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 against the aforesaid order. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Chancellor by his order dated 5.11.2018. The Chancellor, while rejecting that representation inter alia held the appointment of the petitioner was purely contractual and that as the syllabus of Environmental Science, which earlier was part of B.Tech, was removed with effect from the academic session 2016-17 as per the direction of the Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Pravidhik Vishwavidyalaya, Lucknow, and that as the work earlier assigned to the petitioner was being taken from one Amarjeet Singh, who is a teacher in Agricultual Engineering, there is no illegality in dispensing with the services of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had no vested right to continue as he was not holding any post. Therefore there was no illegality in dispensing with his purely contractual services.
In challenging the order of the Chancellor as well as the order dispensing his services, the submission of the petitioner is, he had been continuously working on contract basis since August, 2011 and since the syllabus of subject Environmental Science could not have been removed from the course in view of the binding directions of the Supreme Court, the services of the petitioner were not liable to be determined as his work performance was admittedly satisfactory and the student strength at the institution in question had increased, over the years.
It has also been pointed out that the course was artificially suspended for a short period, at the end of the academic session 2016-17 and it was re-introduced immediately after a month at the beginning of academic session 2017-18. The Government Order dated 15.7.2015 stipulates that the service of the teachers appointed under the self-financing scheme should be permitted to continue till the course continues, provided they perform their duties satisfactorily, even if such courses were being run under the self-financing scheme of the Universities or Colleges.
In defence, learned counsel for the Chancellor adopted the stand which has been taken by the University in it's counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted, the Executive Council of the Choudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, U.P., vide it's Resolution dated 4.7.2007 had resolved that the syllabus of Sir Chhotu Ram Institute of Engineering and Technology shall be the same as prescribed by U.P. Technical University (now A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow). The said University during the academic year 2016-17 had amended the syllabus and had removed the subject Environmental Science from its curriculum (in month of May 2017). At the same time the counter affidavit further states, the aforesaid subject was re-introduced from the academic session 2017-18. It is thus submitted, in view of the above, as the course has been discontinued, the services of the petitioner, who was a contractual teacher, were legally dispensed with.
Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel for the University Grants Commission has submitted, in view of the direction of the Supreme Court to introduce the course/subject of Environmental Science at every level of education, the University Grants Commission had issued circulars dated 20.11.2014, 30.3.2015 and 19.6.2017 to all Universities and institutions requiring them to introduce such a course as directed by the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench of this Court sitting at Lucknow in Service Bench No. 1022 of 2011, Ranjit Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., in similar set of circumstances, where the appointment was for fixed period of six months, held that the services or engagement should not be determined, if the conduct and work was satisfactory and if the scheme or the course was likely to continue meaning thereby it is only on the discontinuation of the course permanently that the services of such contractual teachers would come to an end.
The Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.11.1991 in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Ors., issued binding directions requiring all the Universities to prescribe a course on Environmental Science as a compulsory subject at every level of education and accordingly issued directions to the State Government and other Education Boards, up to Matriculation or even Intermediate colleges to immediately take steps to enforce compulsory education in Environmental Science in a graded way, by the next academic year.
It is in pursuance of the above that the subject of Environmental Science was included in the B.Tech course in the first year, which had been later shifted to the second year. Admittedly, the course so introduced in the institution in question continued during academic session 2016-17 or to be precise till the end of the session i.e. 31.5.2017. It was re-introduced in the academic session 2017-18 with effect from July, 2017 i.e. after a gap of hardly one month.
It is probably in view of such temporary and artificial discontinuation of the course, the respondents contend that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the meanwhile. However, that is not so if we go strictly by the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. The said order dated 12.6.2017 passed by respondent no. 4 is annexed as Annexure no. 13 to the writ petition. A plain and simple reading of the aforesaid order would reveal that the services of the petitioner were determined in view of the Government Order dated 4.2.2000. It assigns no other reason as has been contended by the respondents, before us. It is well-settled that the validity of an order has to be judged on the basis of reasons contained in the order and that the said reasons cannot be supplemented either by counter affidavit or by oral submission. A reference in that regard can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 SCC 405.
In view of the above, it becomes necessary for us to examine the Government Order dated 4.2.2000, which forms the basis for determination of the services of the petitioner. The said order clearly reveals if in a case it is difficult and impossible to continue a course by the self-financing institution or the course has been dispensed with, the services of the teachers who may have been appointed on contract basis, would be determined. A bare reading of the aforesaid Government Order makes it clear that it is only in the event of the discontinuation of the course that a self-financing institute may determine the services of the teachers appointed on a contract basis.
In the present case, the respondents could not have discontinued the course in view of the mandatory directions of the Supreme Court. An artificial break was created. It was timed to occur at the end of academic session 2016-17 and withdrawn at the beginning of the next academic session 2017-18. Thus the discontinuation claimed by the respondents is actually no discontinuation as the course had to and it has continued in the academic session 2017-18 upon it being reintroduced.
Accordingly, in such circumstances, the aforesaid Government Order could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner so as to dispense with his services on the pretext of the discontinuation of the post.
It may be pertinent to clarify that shifting of the subject of Environmental Science from the first year to the second year of the B.Tech course has no material bearing for the purposes of continuation or dispensation of the services of teacher appointed on contract basis.
As far as the fact that one Amarjeet Singh, who is also a contractual teacher at the institution has been entrusted with the work of taking classes in the subject Environmental Science of the B.Tech course from the academic session 2017-18 onwards, it may be noted, the aforesaid Amarjeet Singh is a teacher in Agricultural Engineering and that the petitioner alone had been teaching Environmental Science in the said course since 2011. The assignment of the subject Environmental Science to Amarjeet Singh would in no way affect the working of the petitioner.
The reasoning adopted by the Chancellor in rejecting the representation of the petitioner that he had not acquired any substantive right to continue in service, as he was simply a contractual teacher, could by itself, never be sufficient to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The petitioner may not be having any substantive right to hold any post, nonetheless, his services cannot be dispensed with in an arbitrary manner ignoring or misreading the Government Orders.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders dated 12.6.2017, 23.9.2017 and 5.11.2018 are hereby quashed with the liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order if the circumstances so warrant, strictly in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Prakhar