IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP Nos. 4772 & 5696 of 2011. Decided on: 28th September, 2011. 1. CWP No. 4772 of 2011 Chander Mohan Bhandari Versus Dr. Y.S.Parmar University 2. CWP No. 5696 of 2011 Nand Lal Sharma Versus Dr. Y.S.Parmar University Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate For Respondents 2 to 4: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG and Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The prayers are identical in both the writ petitions, hence one of such prayers is extracted below: (a) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing order, dated 20.4.2011 Annexure P-5 as well as order, dated 31.3.2011, Annexure P-8. (b) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents by way of issuance of a writ of mandamus to protect the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner by treating him as a regular employee of respondent No. 1 University for all intents and purposes including the age at which the petitioner is to superannuate. The respondents be directed to 2 permit the petitioner to continue to be a regular employee of the respondent University till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years as per statute 7.1 of the respondent University with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondent University has taken the same stand in the replies filed in the respective cases. Therefore, we may refer to the reply filed in CWP No. 4772 of 2011, wherein at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the preliminary objections, it is stated as follows:- “1. That it is most respectfully submitted that controversy in this writ petition revolves around two points. First is the apprehension of the petitioner that since presently he is serving the Department of Irrigation and Public Health of the State Government on secondment basis wherein the age of superannuation is 58 years and he is likely to be retired from the said department after attaining the age of 58 years which apprehension is factually incorrect and not proper in view of the provisions of the University Statute 7.2(ii) which prescribes the age of superannuation as 60 years since the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the University Act and Statutes and has to service the University for 60 years. Therefore, the apprehension on this ground is wholly misconceived and misplaced. Secondly the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) so manned by the petitioner in the respondent University has been declared as excess of requirement by the Himachal Pradesh Council for Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Education and Research and duly further acted upon by the Board of Management of the University wherein the core cadre strength of each category of posts so exist in the University 3 has been recasted as per exhibit dated 8.4.2011 Annexure R/1 which clearly indicates that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) manned by the petitioner has been placed in the dying cadre. Furthermore, exhibit dated 25.4.2011 Annexure R/2 clearly indicates that 229 pots which were vacant for so many years in the University have been abolished by the competent authority. Since the petitioner ahs been given protection of service till he attains superannuation i.e. 2015 by the University by placing his services on secondment basis, therefore, petitioner should have rather been thankful to the University administration for not serving him with the notice of termination of service in terms of Statutes provision 7.15(iii). On this ground alone, the present writ is not maintainable. 2. That it will not be out of place to mention here that the State H.P. Council of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Education and Research constituted under Section 9 of this University Act in its meeting held on 20.2.2010 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh has approved the core strength in respect of this University from existing 1991 sanctioned posts to 1387 core cadre strength whereas the strength as on February, 2010 was 1552 incumbents. It is a matter of record that a detailed and exhaustive exercise has already been undertaken and is still going on to adjust the in position 1552 incumbents against the core cadre strength fixed and that being the reason the petitioner alongwith other similar situated university staff shall be adjusted and deployed where there services can be utilized in the best way in the best interest of the University/State Government without any additional financial burden on the State exchequer being a state funded University. Every post and position is being checked and watched by the University administration so as to utilize the available human resource 4 in the best available way. It is relevant that the said State Council has fixed the core cadre strength of the Engineer/Workshop staff as 34 posts out of the sanctioned strength of 61 posts where in position staff is 38 and the petitioner alongwith two others have been sent on deputation/secondment basis with the State Government where enough work is available. As per directions of the State Council, the Board of Management of the University has further fixed the core strength of different category of posts in the University as per its notification dated 8.4.2011 and is annexed as Annexure R/1 which clearly exhibits and proves that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) manned by the petitioner has been excluded from the fixed core cadre strength besides other posts. It is further stated that the services of the petitioner are governed by the Act and Statutes of the University and in terms of Section 25(5) of the University Act dealing with the powers and duties of the Vice Chancellors is apprehended as under:- “The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for prompt and proper implementation on the part of the University its authorities and officers, of the directions by the Council for Education and Research under Section 9 from time to time, and shall have and exercise al the powers necessary for this purpose, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Statutes and the Regulations made or deemed to have been made under this Act.” Therefore, the competent appointing authority i.e. Vice- Chancellor has in faithful discharge of his duties and functions has rightly placed the services of the petitioner together with the others with the State Government in the surplus pool for their placement on secondment basis by giving protection to such individuals whose posts are likely to be abolished in near future instead of recommending their removal from service in terms of Statute 3.2(ii) read 5 with Statute 7.15(iii). Moreover, it is the policy decision of the State Government to have reserve pool of manpower of surplus staff and the respondent university has simply followed the instructions of the Sate Government and nothing more. Furthermore, it is reiterated that no vested right of the petitioner has been infringed or even taken away. On this ground alone, the present writ is not maintainable.” 3. In view of the stand thus taken by the University, no further orders are required to be passed on these writ petitions since the interest of the petitioners has been protected by the University, as can be seen from the reply, as extracted above. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 28th September, 2011(K) (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.