IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 25.08.2010 COCP No.1602 of 2007 Jagdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus Dr. Ravinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vibhor Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. M/s Anupam Gupta & Ashish Rawal, Advocates, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of Dr. P.L.Garg as Registrar of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.09.2006, when a statement was made on behalf of respondent No.1 that the term of Dr.P.L.Garg shall expire by efflux of time on 10.10.2006 and that the University has no intention to extend the contract period of Dr. P.L.Garg and that the University shall make further appointment in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, that after the expiry of contract period, Dr. P.L.Garg was appointed as a Coordinator vide appointment letter dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-3) on the same terms and conditions, as was granted to him as Registrar and; secondly, that Dr. S.S.Walia was appointed as Registrar of the University, though he was more COCP No.1602 of 2007 than 60 years of age and, therefore, in terms of Section 18 of the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’), he could not be appointed as Registrar. On behalf of the respondent, it has been pointed out that Dr.P.L.Garg was appointed as Co-ordinator after expiry of his contractual period as Registrar and that he has not worked as Registrar after expiry of his contract period. It is also pointed out that Dr. S.S.Walia was appointed as Register after the publication of advertisements dated 02.03.2007 and 29.12.2007 for making regular appointed to the posts of Registrar. Since none of the candidates was less than 60 years of age, the University has not made any appointment on regular basis, but keeping in view the suitability of Dr. Walia, he has been appointed on contractual basis as Registrar. It is also pointed out that the term of contractual period of engagement of Dr. Walia has also come to an end in the month of January, 2009 and thereafter Dr. Darshan Singh Sidhu was appointed as Registrar again on contract basis. Mr. Anupam Gupta has relied upon Section 51(2) of the Act to contend that the University is competent to engage contractual employees. The said stand of the respondent is controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has pointed out that the advertisements were for regular/contractual employees and one Kulwant Singh, aged about 61 years, 6 months and 19 days, who was much younger in age than Dr. S.S.Walia, was ignored and Dr.S.S.Walia, who was 67 years of age was preferred for appointment on contract basis as Registrar. It is also argued that Section 51 of the Act empowers the University to engage employees of contractual basis, but such employees should also satisfy the terms and conditions specified under Section 18 of the Act. 2 COCP No.1602 of 2007 The petitioner has filed a writ of quo warranto, wherein the aforesaid order was passed on 01.09.2006. The question; whether the University has a right to make contractual appointments under Section 51 of the Act or such appointments have to be made in terms of eligibility conditions contained in Section 18 of the Act, cannot be gone into a contempt petition, as such question of interpretation is beyond the scope of present petition, when the statement of learned counsel appearing for the University is to make appointments as per law. The appointment as per law is subject to interpretation and there is no clear and categorical opinion can be expressed, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the undertaking given to this Court. In view of the said fact, the present contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the parties to take recourse to the appropriate remedies as may be available to them, in accordance with law. 25.08.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3