@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR W. P, (S) No. 4697 6f 200$ Dr. R.K. Sharma. Aged about 43 years. $/o. Late Shri BS. Sharma. R/o. Forestry Guest Hau$e, Guru Ghasidas University. Bitaspur, Dist't. Biiaspur, CG. State of Chhattisgarh. Thwugh Secretary Higher Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Manuamya, Raipur, CG. Petitioner Respondents The Vice Chanceiiov, Gum Ghasidas University. Kom‘, Bi!aspur, CG. The Regiswar, Guru Ghas§das Jniversity, Kani, Bilaspur. CG. The Chairman, Univasity Grants Commission, Bahaa'ur shah Zafar Mary. New Deihi — 110 D2 WRIT PETiTlQN UNDER ARTICLES 226jzz7 OF THE CDSTiTUTmN OF iNDiA SB: Hon'bie Mi. Juetice Satish K. Agnihotii Shri D. Shashiciharan, Advocate for the petitioner. Sim Satieh Gupta, Dy. Govt Advocate for {espondent Ne“. . $hri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for fespondents no. 2 and 3. Sim Thakur Vijay Singh. Adv‘ccate for respondent NGA. ORDER (Passed. on this /§*:..pf May. 2007) 1. The petitione: has iiied ihie petition undei Article 226/227 of the Ccnstitution of India. chaiienging the order dated 27-7-2006 (Annexure l1). whereby the engagement of the petitioner. as Yoga instructor. was put to an end with effect from 28-6-2006. on the ground that the prescribed period {grant by UGC has come to an end. . The brief facts. in nutsheii. are that the University Grants Commission (for short. “UGC”. New Deihi introduced a scheme {Annexure P/2) for promotion of Yoga Education and Practice and Positive Health in Universities (for short. "the Scheme"). For launching the Scheme. it‘is orovided in Clause 4 of the scheme that the UGC will provide grants to the h) n @ se%ecteé UnwemitBes up ta the end of X Plan period omy Le.‘ 31-3-2007. Thereaftef. the Scheme is required to be taken aver by the concerned Universtties under its maintenance budget. Pursuant to the scheme‘ the Registrat of the respondent No.2/University sent a emposai to the UGC fa: estebiishmeht of Yoga Centre at Biteseur‘ and prayed fer release of initial financiai assistance. In respense to the proposat for establishment of Yoga Centre. sent by the ()b respondent No.2‘ the UGC had accorded the tinanciat assistance of R31 .OO,G00/- vide ietter dated 30-8-2000 (Annexure Pf4i‘ mentioning that the honorarium to the instructors wiii be naid by the Commission. it was tn. her provided that the University has te maintain the centre after the expiry of iX Pian period on 31-3-2002. The University may ap ”int twc Yaga instructors and send the joining reports eta, to the Commission for further necessary action. The University vide advertisement (Annexure P/6) invited applications from the eiiaibie candidates for the post of Yoga instructor with iixed honorarium Rs.6.500/- per month. mentioning that the post is pureiy temporary under UGC Scheme. The petitioner was appointed Vida order dated 21-6-2001 (Annexure Pie). initiaiiy for a period of one year or tiii the permission is granted by the UGC. The petitioner ioined his duties on 29-6-2001. Thereafter, vide ietter dated 9-1-2002 (Annexure P/9) it was communicated by the UGC to the respondent No.2 that “the Commission has decided that aii the Yoga Centre estabiished during iX Pian period wiii be tinanciaiiy supported from fuii term of 5 years (Len even beyond 31-3-2002) from the date of ioining of Yoga instructors and thereafter the spherne may be taken over by the concerned universities in its maintenance budget.” The respondent No2/University vide order dated 19-2-2003 extended the period of engagement oi the petitioner as Yoga Instructor from 29-6-2002 to 28-0-2003: Thereafter‘ vide order dated 17-3-2004 the engagement of ii @ me petitioner was extended for a perm of one yeaf and vide order dated 28-8-2904 fGf a period of twe years. Since the engagement of the petitioner as Yega fnstructor wae put to an end vide impugned order dated 27-7-2006 fAnnexure P/1) with effect from 28-6-2006. he has fried this petition. . The {esponeents No. 2 and 3 {Univefeim have fiied the» return. etating that the petitioner wee engaged pureiy en temperary poet. The petitiener was not working against the sanctioned pest end no sanctioned poet cf Yoga inetructor is avaiiabie. The appointment of the petitioner was subject to the grant— in-aid provided by the UGC ‘Scheme. The respondent No.2/Univereity vide ietter dated 12-6-2005 (Annexure R-2/2) requested the State Government to provide grant-in-aid so that Yoga Centre may continue after 30-5-2005, . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is obligatory on the part of the respondent No.2 University to continue the scheme even after 60,5.2006 under its maintenance budget. The disengagement of the petitioner is not sustainable sinceithe petitioner has attained the age of 45 years and he is age barred for further appointments elsewhere. , i have heard Shri D. Shashidharan. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta. learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 . 8hri Neerai Choubey. learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Shri Thakur Viiay Singh. learned counsei appearing for the respondent No.4. 10.Admittediy. the petitioner was appointed initially for a period of one year wet. 29.6.2001 and the same was continued by subsequent extension letters dated 19.2.2003 and 17.3.2004 for a period of two years. Thereafter, vide ietter dated 28.3.2004 (Annexure Pi1 0) the petitioner was appointed for a further period of two years. it was clearly stated in the appointment order itself that the honourarium to the extent of Rs. 6500i- would be paid from the grants received from the U.G.C. The appointment \o\ 0f the petitioner‘ as such‘ wars not 0n a regular substantWe post but was an a temporary pwt for one year and thereafter continued far one year‘ and finany further for two years‘ subiect to gayment of grants received from the U.G.C. The contrnuation of the Yoga Teacher and Yoga Centers depends on the financier support from the U.G.C./Stete Government. The apoorntment of the oetitioner was not against any sanctiened post and as such the question of continuation of his service and the regularization on the eatd post does not arise. “The contention of teamed counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has attained the age of 45 years and it was not possibte for him to get the empioyrnent eieewhere, has no basis as the petitioner very weii knew. in advance, when the appointment of the petitioner was made that his appointment was not in permanent nature and it wee oniy for a period of one year. which was extended for some more years. 12.Ciaose 4 of the Scheme for promotion of yoga education and practice and positive heeith in universities reads a3 under:- “4. NATURE OF ASSISTANCE The UGC wit} provide grants to the seiecteci universities up to the enn of X Plan period onty i.e. 31,5‘ March 200?. Thereafter the scheme is required to he taken over by the concerned universities under ite maintenance budget. The UGC Witt provide financial assistant as hinders 4.01 O$A lSNo. l items Financial Assistance under the Scheme Ki ’i ,80,000/- The universities may charge Rs. 5{i/— om. pr head as a token fee from the students/teachers non-teaching staff interested to participate in its yoga centre activities for meeting the recurring expenditnre. The minimum ouaiifications for yoga instructors shaii be as under: r, 1. ) Equipmentifurnishing Rs. 't,G0,0t30!—(One-time t i t grant) {2. Honorarium to instructors - Rs. i,$0,006i~ pa. @ i maximum two (2) Rs. 7500/-p.m. (Rs. ?500x 12x2 =Rs. \ \ A. . Post-graduate degree (full time eourse) in YogaNogic ScienceIYoga Therapy/Yoga Studies etc. from a recognized univerefty. OR 2. Pest-graduate diploma (fun time of at least (me year course) in Yoga/Yogic Science/Yoga TheraeylYoga Studies etc. from a recognized university ct an eminent institutien with a well established feputatien in the field of yoga with a minimum experience 0f two yeats in yoga teaching and practice.” 13.The Scheme daes not indicate that it wee binding on the concerned Un‘versity to run the Scheme under its maintenance budget. it is true that it was intended that the U.G.C. wouid provide grants up to the end of mm pian oniy Le. 31$ March, 2007 and thereafter the University has to take ever. The taking over invcives hnanciai implications and this Court cannot direct the University to continue with the Yoga center and make payments from its maintenance budget. 14.Be that as it may. the appointment of the oetitioner was for a tenureicontractuai aopointment and the petitioner has not acquired any right to the post. The appointment of the petitioner cannot be heid as in accordance with the provisions of Articles i4. 16 and 309 of the Constitution of india. This issue is no longer res integra that the appointment made de hots the constitutionai scheme of the empioyment, not in accordance with the Ruies framed under Articie 309 of the Constitution. is invaii and unconstitutionai, The empioyee so appointed has no right to continuation/regularization on the post. In View of the settled position of law as enunciated by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Kamataka and others Vs. Unmdeoil daily rated, temporary or ad hoe or contract appoihtees have Ito right to the post as their appointment was not in aceordahoe with the i w? CGnstitutiona! Schsme of the appoixitment and 11at in accordance with my Rules, Regulations, as framed under the proviso to Article 309 cf the Constitution of Ind§a. 16.App5y§ng the we}! sewed pasition cf law to the facts of the case, it is clear that the appeintment sf t. e petétieaer on the east of Yoga teachef. foe the :eaeens‘ skated herein abave, was not in accwdance wkh law and regu:at§ons and net agamst sanctiened pest. e a 17.Thus this eetkisn is dismissed. Ne crder aem costs. v e Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 {2006) 4 SCC l Thakur