i.^y-.B-i'i^^iiByisis^^ ^^* o c^l^' HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGAfW AT BILASPUR Writ Appeaf No.132of2X)7 APPEU.ANT: Dr. R.K. Sharma, Aged about 43 years, S/o late Shri B.S. Shaiwia, R/o Fore^ry Guest Houset <?uru Ghasidas University, BHaspur, DistrictBilaspur(CG) Versus RESPONDENTC: 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Higher Edueatlon Ctepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur(CG) The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasid^ Univeraty, Koni, Bilaspur (CG) The Registrar, Guru Ghasldas University, Koni^ Bilaspur (CG) The Chairman, Univereity Grants ConimissjGn, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110 02 Present: Shri Mateen Siddiqye, counsel forthe appellant. Shrl S.K. Mlshra, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.1. Shri Neeraj Choubey,counsel for respondentsNo.2 and 3. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for respondent No.4. ^ DwisionBench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Miste'a & ; Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (1-12-2309) 1. This writ appeal is directed again^ theorder dated 15 May, 2007 passed in W.P.(S) No.4697/2(X% whereby leamed Singte Judge has dismissedthe petitionofthe appeltantherein. 2 The facts, as projected from the impugned order, are that trte Regirtrar of cespondent No.2 University senta propreal to the Universtty Gnants Commissiont New Delhi (Torshort 'UGC') forestablishm^it of Yoga Centre at Bitaspur and prayed fbr release of initial financialla^istance '--^aff'E^aEffi.iSca c\s- ^y tf as per the scheme of the UGC forpromotion of Yoga educatlon and practice and positive health in Universities. In response to the proposal of the University, UGC accorded flnanciat assistance of Rs.1 lakh vide their memo dated 30 August, 2000 mentioning that honorarium to the instructors would be paid by the UGC. It was atso provided that the University has to maintain the centre after the expiry oflX Plan period on31stMareh, 2002 andthe University waspermitted to appoint two Yoga Instructors and communicate atwut their appointment after their joining for further necessary action. In response to the advertisement, the appellant applied for the post of Yoga Instructor and he was appointed vide order dated 21-6-2001 Initially for a period of one year or till the permission is granted by UGC. The appellant joined his duties on 29-6-2001. UGC vkte its letter dated 9-1-2)02 communicated to the University ite decision that all the Yoga Centre established under IX Plan period would be financiatly supported Tor full term of 5 years and thereafter the scheme may be taken over by the concemed universities In tts maintenance budget. The engagement of the appellant as Yoga instructor was extended finally for a period of 2 years on 28-8-M04, however, the appellant's tenure was put to an end vide impugned order dated 27-7-20Q6 w'lth effect from 28-6-2006; 3. Shri Mateen Siddique, leamed counsel for the appeilant woutd argue that as per the X Plan, grant-in-aid was availab!e Tor a period of 5 years which expired onlyon 31st March, 2002, however, the appellantwas removed from servlce with effect from 28-6-2006 and thls order was delivered to the appellant onty on 27-7-2006, which cleariy reveals malafide intention of the respondent univereity. The appellant could not be denied from the resuttant benefit arising outof the contract between the UGC and the University for the establishment of Y(^a centre. The appellant legitimately expected that after the esfabltehment ofYoga centre in University as per UGC scheme, he witl also have the benefit of serving the Unlversity as ¥oga instructor, as fund for establishment of centre was made availabte to the Univereity by the UGC in the form of grants. v^as::-i.~^!»^St.u.cys^wSwff!ss^i^a -•^ ^ Jf- 4. On the other hand, Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsef for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that the UGC vkle itsletter dated 1 November, 1^9 hadinvited the proposals from the Universities under the above scheme during IX plan. The above communication clearty stipulated that the scheme was only for IX Plan period and, therefore, the recruitment of futl time faculty members for Yoga or conducting structured courses is not proper. The appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis on fixed honorarium as Yoga instructor initially for a period of one year on 21 -6-2001. The Yoga Centre established during IX Plan period was to be financially supported for a full term of 5 years as per the circular of UGC. Since the period of the respondents came to an end on 21-6-2006, his contract was not furthereadended. 5. Shri Saehin Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the UGC, submitted that the appeltant's appofntment was for flxed period and contractuat and he did not acquire any right fo the post and, therefore, his writ petition has been rightly dismissed. 6 We have heard learned counsel for the parttes. We have peru^d the pleadings ofthe respective parties as also the impugned order. 7 Learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings of the respective parties and documents fited bythem has dismissed the petition with an observation that the appointment of the appeltant was for a tenure/contractual appointment and the appellant has not acquired any rlght to the post. The appointment ofthe appellant cannot be held as in accordance with the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and ^)9 of the Constitution of India. This issue is no tonger res//?(eg/a that the appointment made dehors the constitutional scheme of the employment, not in accordance with the Rutes framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, is invalid and unconstitutional. The employee so appointed has no right to continuation/regularization on the post. 8 The impugned order isstrictly in accordaqce with the s^tled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the caseiofSecretarx, State ofKamataka and othersVs. Umadevl {(2006) 4SCC 1} 'taBinaasn—-T,-m-"^T*^"^^=Hd5asiIKTfta^ .'''>^:;._...u_.^^;:'::. Miah.ulm-uuAnmBBU-tlSui- y a§pnf JB5[BJpueq3 •j^-g -/PS aSpnf jqsii\[ BipuMiqQ, -/PS SAjeg •P^SSJLUSJP Aqsjsy si pue sq 0} ssAjesep euiBS si|} 'iesdde Siyi ui soueisqns Aue puy tou op SM 'unsaj sy} u| 6 s^ .r \ ^*