CWP No.9644 of 2002 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 9644 of 2002 Date of Decision: 23 - 10 - 2008 Sandip Singla and others ....Petitioners v. Punjabi University, Patiala and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Sr.Advocate with Mr.N.D.Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rohan Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) The present writ petition has been preferred by three petitioners, namely, Sandip Singla, Vikas Jindal and Mukesh Kumar. It is stated in the petition that petitioners No.1 and 3 had excellent academic record and obtained 70% and 67% marks respectively in Masters Degree in Computer Application in June, 2001, whereas petitioner No.2 did Bachelor Degree in Computer Science by securing 67% marks. It is case of the petitioners that in pursuance of advertisement issued in `The Tribune' dated 7.10.2001, they appeared in walk-in interview on 10.10.2001 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Punjabi University Guru Kashi CWP No.9644 of 2002 [2] College, Damdama Sahib. A perusal of advertisement Annexure P-1 show that it was necessary that the candidates should fulfill the qualification as prescribed by the Union Grants Commission (hereinafter to be referred as, `UGC'). Mr.A.K.Chopra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to appointment letter, Annexure P-2. True translation of the appointment letter is attached as Annexure P-2. In para 2 it has been typed that period of this appointment is upto 31.3.2002. Mr.Chopra has referred to para 5 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that the line that appointment was upto March 31, 2002, before issuing the appointment letters, was scored off. Vernacular of the appointment letter has been attached as Annexure P-2/T. A perusal of the same reveals that a line has been typed that the duration of the appointment shall be upto 31-3- 2002 and thereafter this line has been scored off. The grievance of the petitioners is that vide Annexure P-3, their services were terminated and termination order read as under:- “As per the orders of the Vice Chancellor's Sahib, your services as Lecturer in Computer Application are terminated w.e.f. 15.6.2002 vide letter No.15518/Estt.S-4 dated 19.6.02 of Deputy Registrar (Establishment), Punjabi University, Patiala. This is being written for your information. Principal, Punjabi University, Guru Kashi College, Damdama Sahib.” Mr.Chopra has extensively referred to Clause 4 of the appointment letter wherein it has been stated that appointee shall be on probation for a period of two years. He contended that this reflect the intention of the employer CWP No.9644 of 2002 [3] that the appointment was not for the period upto 31.3.2002. He has also read Clause 8 of the appointment letter to state that appointees were required to submit medical fitness certificate from the Chief Medical Officer of the University which is a pre-requisite condition for regular employee. He has also referred to Clause 9 of the appointment letter to contend that verification of the antecedents is also essential for regular employees. He has also read Clause 9 wherein it was said that if services were to be terminated or if employee has to leave the appointment, a three months' notice was required to be given. He has also read Clause 15 wherein it has been stated that appointment was temporary and was likely to be continue. Mr.Chopra has said that nature of the appointment was regular and permanent and, therefore, University cannot raise a plea that appointments of the petitioners were temporary. Having urged that appointments of the petitioners were regular and permanent in nature, he has said that before passing order Annexure P-3, it was incumbent upon the employer to issue show cause notice or to hold a proper enquiry. He has further stated that no reasonable opportunity has been afforded to the petitioners and, therefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated. He has further submitted that services of the petitioners could only be terminated by the Syndicate which was a competent authority. He has further stated that a perusal of termination letter Annexure P-3 show that the same was issued on 27.6.2002, therefore, services of the petitioners could not be terminated with retrospective effect. Mr.Chopra has further stated that since no reason has been assigned in the termination order, therefore, same can be construed to be stigmatic and cannot be sustained, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. Mr.Chopra has further stated that compulsory CWP No.9644 of 2002 [4] requirement of passing the National Eligibility Test (hereinafter to be referred as, `NET') is not available in the case of the petitioners as they are AICTE candidates. He has stated that Lecturers of AICTE and UGC have different para meters and, therefore, University is wrong in insisting that petitioners should have passed the NET examination. It has been further stated that in all subsequent advertisements, it has been provided that one should have AICTE qualification or UGC qualification. Counsel further states that even though it has not been pleaded, yet he has argued on instructions from the petitioners that no person in the University has passed the NET examination which is governed by AICTE. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioners have been controverted by Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, senior counsel appearing for Punjabi University assisted by Mr.Rohan Chaudhary. He has stated that for appointment of a Lecturer, it is essential that he should have passed the NET examination conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC. He has argued that in the advertisement, Annexure P-1, it has been specifically stated that candidate should possess qualification as prescribed by the UGC. He has drawn my attention to para 4 of the written statement to contend that appointment letter is on a printed format which provide all the terms and conditions. The appointment letters were issued on the printed format which is meant for regular employees but in the advertisement it has been specifically stated that appointment was only upto 31.3.2002. He has stated that when in the advertisement duration of the appointment was upto 31.3.2002, there was nothing which necessitated scoring off the line in which it was stated that appointment was upto 31.3.2002. Therefore, he has read para 4 of the written statement and urged CWP No.9644 of 2002 [5] that it is clearly mentioned in the appointment letter that the same was upto 31.3.2002. In these circumstances, whether appointments were upto 31.3.2002 or regular appointments, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be determined in the writ petition. When and where and by whom line was scored off is a matter of evidence. Therefore, I stand guided by the advertisement that appointments were for a specific period i.e. upto 31.3.2002. It has been further stated that because petitioners continued to work beyond 31.3.2002, they can be termed as permanent employees. It has been specifically stated in the written statement that none of the petitioners fulfill the qualification as prescribed by the UGC and they have not passed the NET examination. It has been further submitted that since the appointments have not been approved by the Syndicate, therefore, the termination was not subject to approval of the Syndicate. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh has further stated that since the appointments were for a temporary duration, no resolution of the Syndicate was required. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the present case, it is admitted position that petitioners have not passed the NET examination which is essential qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer. This disability cannot be cured simply because the petitioners were allowed to continue for a period of three months beyond 31.3.2002. The termination letter specifically state that their services are being dispensed with because they lack essential qualification. Once services of the petitioners had been dispensed with because they lack essential qualification, it cannot be said that the termination letter was stigmatic in nature. Their appointments being temporary in nature, is a fact which is apparent from the advertisement issued, therefore, no enquiry was CWP No.9644 of 2002 [6] essential and they have no right to be heard before passing the impugned order of termination. Taking all these contentions into consideration, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) October 23, 2008. JUDGE RC