IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 429 of 2006 (S/B) Dr. S.C. Singh ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents. Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent No. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for the Union of India / respondent No. 3. Date of Judgment: 28.12.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The writ petition challenges the decision of the respondent – University, contained in resolution No. 23 of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the respondent – University dated 29th July, 2006. By the said decision, respondent – University has purported to hold out that in the matter of College Development Council, the State Government has not undertaken the responsibility of funding the University for continuing College Development Council after 31st March, 1995 and, accordingly, College Development Council shall stand dissolved with effect from the said decision. 2. The reason for challenging the said decision is that the petitioner was appointed as the Coordinator / Director of College Development Council constituted by the respondent – University in the year 1991. In the event College Development Council is abolished, the post held by the petitioner in the College Development Council will also stand abolished and, accordingly, the said decision of the respondent – University has been assailed by filing the present writ petition. 3. The fact remains, University Grants Commission issued a revised guidelines for the establishment of College Development Council in 2 Universities. Since none of the respondents has disputed the contents of the said guidelines, as annexed to one of the affidavits filed by the petitioner, we proceed to hold that University Grants Commission had issued such guidelines. The date of the said guidelines is, however, not available. A reading of the said guidelines will make it amply clear that the directions contained therein were not mandatory. University Grants Commission gave a discretion to the Universities to set up a Council of the nature proposed by the said guidelines. In the guidelines, it was provided, amongst others, that University Grants Commission may provide adequate grants to the Universities to meet the expenditure on account of salaries and allowances to be paid to the Coordinator / Director / Dean of the Council. The said guidelines further provided that in order to constitute the Council, as suggested thereby, only a Coordinator / Director / Dean is required to be appointed by the Universities and in addition thereto, a stenographer may also require to be appointed in order to assist the Coordinator / Director / Dean. The said guidelines clearly indicated, what scale of pay will be applicable to the Coordinator / Director / Dean of the Council, and that, the person, so to be appointed, must be appointed on the recommendation of the selection committee, contemplated to be constituted by and under the said guidelines. It also provided that the person, so to be appointed, may be appointed on deputation. It then provided as follows: “He may be appointed on a tenure basis for three years, extendable for another term of three years, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire.” 4. At this juncture, it must be kept in mind that admittedly, at the time when the said guidelines were issued, the age of retirement of persons associated with Universities was 58 / 60 years. Despite that, the said guidelines authorized engagement of a person upto the age of 65 years and directed that beyond 65 years, the person concerned shall not be entitled to work; he should retire. The scheme, therefore, envisaged selection of such a person as Coordinator / Director / Dean of the College Development Council who has acquired great experience in the matter of higher education in order to facilitate fruitful coordination, which was emphasized for constitution of the College Development Council. 3 5. In the guidelines so issued, it was not contemplated that the College Development Council, envisaged therein, was to remain in existence for a particular period of time. A look at the said guidelines would show that while an emphasis was made for constitution of such a Council, University Grants Commission held out that it may provide adequate grants to meet the expenditure on account of salaries and allowances to be paid to the Coordinator / Director / Dean and the stenographer to be attached with him. The remaining expenditures for the Council were contemplated to be incurred by the University. There was no contemplation that the University Grants Commission will cease to be responsible for reimbursing expenses on account of salaries and allowances to be paid to the Coordinator / Director / Dean and his stenographer after expiry of a certain period of time. However, it appears that on 14th June, 1991, a request was made to the respondent – University by one Mr. M.D. Muttreja, Under Secretary, to obtain a clear-cut assurance from the State Government to the effect that the State Government will take over the liability of the College Development Council after 31st March, 1995 as suggested in a circular dated 5th June, 1991. That suggests, which has also been accepted, that the University Grants Commission wanted the State Government to take over the responsibility to bear the expenditure of the Council, including the salaries as mentioned above, from 1st April, 1995. It also appears that on 31st October, 1991, Mr. Madan Mohan Singh, Officer on Special Duty, Government of Uttar Pradesh, by a letter, held out to the respondent – University that he has been directed to inform the University that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has agreed to bear the expenses to be incurred in respect of the post of Director, CDC, created by University Grants Commission in Garhwal University, after 31st March, 1995. 6. In the meantime, as it appears, on being selected by the selection committee contemplated by and under the said guidelines, petitioner was appointed as Director, College Development Council of the respondent – University. From the averments made in the pleadings of the parties, it appears that though the Government of Uttar Pradesh categorically agreed to 4 bear the expenses to be incurred for the post of Director, CDC, created by the University Grants Commission in Garhwal University after 31st March, 1995, respondent – University did not obtain reimbursement from the State Government of the expenses it incurred for paying salaries and allowances of the petitioner, who, by then, had been appointed by the respondent – University as Director, CDC of the respondent – University. Because the respondent – University did not obtain such reimbursement, respondent – University could not hold out that there was no assurance by the Government to the effect that it will take over the liability of the said Council after 31st March, 1995, in as much as the aforementioned letter of Mr. Madan Mohan Singh has not been denied by any of the respondents. 7. In the circumstances, the conclusion would be that the said decision of the respondent – University, being resolution No. 23 contained in the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the respondent – University dated 29th July, 2006, is factually incorrect and, accordingly, is liable to be and should be quashed. We, accordingly, quash the decision contained in the said resolution. 8. Having thus quashed the said resolution, we have been called upon to decide the second prayer made in the writ petition, i.e., to continue the College Development Council in its present form. In other words, petitioner is seeking continuation of the College Development Council with him as the Director thereof. Petitioner, having been appointed as Director of the said Council established by the respondent – University, admittedly, under the said scheme, in accordance therewith, could only work for two tenures of three years as such Director. Petitioner, having had admittedly served two tenures of three years, meaning thereby, for six years, despite having not reached the age of 65 years, in accordance with the said guidelines, he cannot work further as Director of the said Council. In the circumstances, although the College Development Council so constituted will continue, but without the petitioner as its Director. 5 9. Petitioner is seeking also consequential relief. We think, having regard to the decision contained in resolution No. 23 of the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the respondent – University dated 29th July, 2006, it would be appropriate on the part of the respondent – University to complete adjustment of the petitioner, as mentioned in the said resolution, at an early date. 10. With the said direction, we dispose of the writ petition. 11. After we dictated the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two terms of three years, as mentioned in the above quoted clause, applies to deputationists, in as much as the word “He” has been used at the beginning of the sentence and after the sentence permitting appointment of deputationists. He submitted that the same is based on the principles of ejusdem generis. He submitted that it must be deemed that two tenures of three years apply only to those who have been appointed on deputation. We are unable to accept the submission, in as much as the deputationists, in the instant case, would also come from the same source, i.e., people associated with higher education. As aforesaid, at the relevant time when the guidelines were issued, the retirement age of the people associated with higher education was much less than 65 years. Therefore, by the word “He,” it was meant the person who is to be appointed as Director. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.12.2011 28.12.2011 Amit