u: ^^ ^--^^f-y^^-^r^K^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVJSIQN^ENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHR! SUNSL KUMAR SINHA. J. Petitioner Writ Appeal No.216 of 2010 Dr Yadavendra Prasad Oubey, S/o Shri BP Dubey, Aged about 37 years, Working as Lecturer of mathematics In Guru Ghasidas Vishvavidyaiay, Bilaspur (CG) Versys 1 Guru Ghasidas Vishvavidyalay, Through its Registrar, Bilaspur (CG) 2 Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Vishvavidyaiay, Bii'aspur (CG) 3 Head of Department Mathematics, University Teaching Departmetn, Guru Ghasidas Vishvavidyalay, Bilaspur bi. Writ Appeal under Sectlon 2 (1) of hte Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appea! to DiVision Benchi Act. 2GOS - Present : Shri PS Koshy and Shri Vinod Deshmutch, counsel for {he appeSiant. Judament (14th Ju!y, 2810$ The followng judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri PS Koshy and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, leamed counsel for the appeilant are heard on IA No.1/2010, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the writ appeal. •^. ^^^^: &. ' 1 ^ Ef 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeliant and the grounds taken in the applicatlon, we are satlsfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficlent cause for the delay in filtng the writ appeal. 3) IA No.1/2010, therefore, is allowed and the delay of 18 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri P.S. Koshy and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, leamed counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 5) Appellant Dr Yadavendra Prasad Dubey has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 08.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.3566/2006. 6) Appellant /petitioner Dr Yadavendra Prasad Dubey filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: "7.1 That this Hon'bte Court may Wndly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner by respondent No.1 for its Idnd perusal. 7.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may please to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the inconsistent condltion present in the order of appointment of Annexure P/3 <^. which are In contraventibn of the conditions mentioned in the advertisemfent Invlting applications for appointment order that the appointment of the petitioner is against the vacancy caused by the appointment of Shri AS Ranldaveas Reader in the Institute of Technology, temporarily until Turther orders, may klndly be quashed. 'yy"^ '^, ^ v!s^^^^: u "•99^ U ^ :.. SB !>s :,• '.:'• te!& 7.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to command the respondents by appropriate writ to the pay the petftioner the Salary due to him from May 2002 till date the payment is made. 7.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing the illegal and arbitrary action of Annexure P/10 by which the respondents have decided to pay the petitioner the Salary payabie to the Contract Teacher and to remove from his post after April 2003. 7.5 That this Hon'bie Court may further be pleased to set aside/quash the order Dt.28/2/06 whereby the respondents have rejected the representation of the petltioner holdlng it to be bad. 7.6 That, any other relief whteh the Hon'ble Court deems just in the circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioner including the cost." 7) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the specific terms and conditions mentioned in the order of petitioner's appolntment held that the petitioner has no right to continue on the post after the re-joining of Dr. AS Randlve on the said post. Leamed Single Judge, however, found the petitioner entitled to the arrears of salary on the basis of pay-scale fixed in the year of his appointment wlth increments and other allowances as determined by the University, from time to time during the period ofworking of the petitioner as Lectureragainst the vacant post which was availabte during the appointment of Dr. AS Randive as reader in ^^^^^^^^^^^^SS^5^j^R;^^^^^^§l^^^^^^^^^^^ss^^^^^?§^^^^^'?i;^"^i^:'?^^^^^0%^^^^^§^S^^^^^^^f^ES^'i^^1^^ ^^i?%$;^i?^i^^^^^il'^^'^:^%?^'^;:%^S?^;W..^;:'']~£i;';"S?<^^@!^.^^^^^ ^^t^^^^''':"^^'A' S ^12^-?^^^^'^''^:?^^^'';?S ^S'^^^1•i^g-[?% the tnstitute of Technology. Learned Single Judge, therefore, vide Impugned order dated 08.04.2010 allowed the appellant's / petitioner's writ petition in part and directed the respondent/University to catculate the anrears of salary of the petitioner and make the payment of the same to the petitioner wlthin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 8) Shri P.S. Koshy and Shri Vinod Deshmukh, leamed counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that leamed Single Judge has erred in holding that the appellant has no right to continue on the said post after rejoining of Dr.AS Randive, as the petitioner had applied against the advertisement issued by the University for appointment against the vacant post and subsequently the petitioner's name was included tn the Seniority list published by the University; and the Unlversity itself permltted the appeilant/petitioner tocontinue on the said post even after rejoining of Dr. AS Randive. 9) A bare perusal of the order of the appetlant's /petitioner's appointment (Annexure P/3) makes it clear that the appellant/petltioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer in Mathematlcs on account of the temporary vacancy created due to selectlon / appointment of Dr. AS Randlve in the Instltute of Technology. The appointment order speclflcatly mentlons that the appointment of the appetlant/petittoner on the post of Lecturer of Mathematics was of temporary nature until further orders. Since ,%'--€' .//'^""":^. Yw^ padma 5 Dr.AS Randive retained hts lien on the post it was obvious that on the re-joinlng of Dr.AS Randive on the post of Lecturer in Mathematics, the petitioner was bound to vacate the post. 10) On due consideration of the submlssions of leamed counsel for the appellant and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the Impugned order passed by learned Single Judge whlch may warrant interference in this intra Court appeal. 11) The writ appeal, therefore, is hereby dismissed summarily. le to be dismissed and Is Sd/- ChiefJustice -^' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge [ ass' &•