IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 1 9 9 8. BEFORE THE HON ‘BLE NR, JUSTICE SRI H L DATTU WRIT PETITION NUMBER;6907/1993. BETWEEN; Dr. A.S.Parashivamurthy, Professor & Head Department of Soil Science, A-5, Quarters, Hebbal, Baaiore24, now working as Professor ,Alemaya University of Agriculture Ethiopia. PETITIONER (BY SRI C.SSHANTHAMALLAPPA ADVOCATE) AND; 1 The University of Agricultural Science, by its Estate Officer, GKVK, Bangalore—65. 2, The Administrative Officer, University of Agricultural Sciences ,GKVK ,Bangalore-65 3. The Chairman, House Allotment Committee, GKVK, Bangalore, 4. The Controller, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK ,Bangalore’6S RESPONDENTS R2 TO R4 SERVED) This petition is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order/communication passed by RI in NoEOHAC,A5/92”93 dt 2311993 vide Annexure—D etc, This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court made the following: ORDER A Professor and Head of Department of Soil. Science in the University of Agricultural Sciences is before this court in a petition uc Art22é of the Constitution inter alia questioning the orders made by the Estate Officer of the let respondent University dated 23rd January 1993. y the said letters respondent University has intimated the petitioner that his family members may retain the official quarters for a period of 90 days on payment of normal. rents and after the expiry of 90 days they should quit and deliver vacant possession of the quarters. It is at this staqe, petitioner had approached this court being aggrieved by the same 2, Facts of this case may briefly be stated as under: The petitioner as a Professor and Head of Department of Soil Sciences was requested by Alemaya University of Ethiopia to employ him as a Professor for a period of two years. The offer so made by the said University was accepted by the petitioner. But according to him for a period less than one year even though the said University wanted him to work as Professor for two years. No doubt the contract of employment between the parties indicates that the contract of employment is for a period of two years. But the petitioner had categorically intimated to the respondent University that he would be returning and joining —3— the University within one year from the date he is rIIved from services of the University. 3. According to the respondents petitioner was relieved from the post held by him on 171O92. Before petitioner could proceed to Alemaya University situated at Ethiopia he had addressed a letter to the respondent University on 26d21992 informing the University that he will be returning within one year and reporting for duty as Professor of Soil Sciences. He had also requested the University authorities that he may be permitted for retention of official quarters allotted to him on payment of normal rents This request of the petitioner made through his letter dated 23/2612.l992 has been replied by the Estate Officer of the University. In that reply the Estate Officer does not refer to the intimation of the petitioner given to him with regard to returning from foreign service within one year. However intimates the petitioner and his family members that they can retain the quarters only for a period of 90 days from the date of his relief and thereafter should hand over the vacant possession of the premises as envisaged under Clause 13(a) of the Amended Revised Regulations for Allotment of House to the Employees of the University of Agricultural Sciences( Regulat ions for short ). S a S -4. 4. Sri Anandakrishna ehetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent University could not have pressed into service Clause 13(a) of the Regulations to direct the petitioner to retain the quarters for a period of 90 days from the date of his relief and thereafter, hand over possession of the premises to the Estate Officer. In support of this contention, learned counsel takes me through Clause 13(a) of the Regulations, which reads as under: 13.a) The allottees whose services are spared by the University on foreign service tern and condi tions for more than one year to State Government/Central Govt./ Inter national Organieation may re tain the quarters eon payment of normal rent for a period not exceed ing ninety days from the date of his/her relief. The allottee shall be liable for eviction thereafter. 5. A reading of the aforesaid clause would only indicate that the allottee of the quarters whose services are spared by the University for Foreign Service for more than one year can retain the quarters for payment of normal rents for a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of his/her relief. It also indicates that after expiry of the period of 90 days the allottee shall be liable for eviction thereafter. This is all that clause IX a) contemplates 6 Sri H.T.Narayana, learned counsel =5 appearing for respondent University vehemently asserts before this court that the petitioner was relieved from the services of the Univ:ity on l791992 and he reported for duty on 10lOl993. That means, the petitioner had accepted the service in a foreign University for more than one year and therefore, respondents were right and justified in invoking Cll3(a) of the Regulations and directing the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises after the expiry of 90 days from the date of his relief. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent for the reason that the petitioner in fact by his letter dated 23/26121992 had informed the University that he would be returning from his Foreign Service within one year and he would be reporting for duty on or before 25ll1993. In fact, the petitioner was relieved from service on l7l01992 and he reported for duty after relieving himself as Professor from lemaya University of Ethiopia on 19lO1993 which clearly indicates that the contract with Alemaya University 4\ L’(S is less than a year, Ej th , Cl13(a) of the Regulation could not have been invoked by the respondent University and they could not have directed the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the official quarters after the expiry of 90 days. =6= 7 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner is liable for payment of penal rents icier Cl17 of the Regulations. C117 indicates that if the allottee does not vacate the quarters within the time prescribed under the Regulations shall pay a penal rent at five times the normal rent, In my views Cll7 of the Regulations can be pressed into service provided the petitioner has violated Cl,13(a) of the Regulations. Otherwise respondents cannot invoke Cl,17 of the Regulations and ask the petitioner to pay a penal rent at five times the normal rent. In that view of the matters even this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent has no merit and it is accordingly rejected 8. For the reasons stated petition is allowed, Rule made absolute. The impugned order dated 23rd 3anuary 1993 issued by the University Fstate Officer is quashed In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly, Sd/ JUDGE ( I