IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19266 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 19, 2010. Dr.Jaskaran Singh .....Petitioner versus Punjab University, Chandigarh .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.5. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure P-7) whereby the Principal of J.D.College of Education, Muktsar, has terminated his services by treating him to be a contractually appointed Lecturer. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length and on consideration of the pleadings, the following order was passed by this Court on 27.7.2010:- “The advertisement (Annexure P-1) specifically invited applications for the posts of Lecturers “on regular basis”. The petitioner who is Ph.D. and NET-qualified C.W.P.No .19266 of 2008 2 candidate, was duly considered by a validly constituted Selection Committee and his name was duly recommended at No.1 in the order of merit for appointment on permanent (or probation) basis in regular pay scale. As per the case of the respondent College/Management, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 1.8.2007 (Annexure R-2/2) on “adhoc basis and the status would continue till your services are confirmed by the Selection Committee of Punjab University, Chandigarh/NCTE” and that the petitioner “shall have to complete a probation period of one year.........” Some of the terms and conditions are mutually contradictory which simply suggest either lack of knowledge or a malicious intention to exploit and keep the young unemployed candidates on tenterhook. Suffice it to say that no other “Selection Committee” is to be super-imposed by the University though its approval is needed which is granted on verification of the eligibility of the selected candidate. The University also appears to be hand-in-glove with the Management as its Registrar, after a long correspondence informed the College vide letter dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure R-2/5) that approval case of the petitioner was “under process”. Instead of awaiting for a decision regarding approval, the College-Management has terminated the petitioner's services on the pretext that his appointment was for one 'academic-session' only. The petitioner has not been dealt with fairly, may be he was not the choice of the Management. Post for further consideration on 19.8.2010. Meanwhile, operation of the termination order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure P-7) is hereby stayed. C.W.P.No .19266 of 2008 3 The Management of the College is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The Registrar of the respondent-University is directed to put up the case of the petitioner for 'approval' before the competent authority who shall take its final decision before the next date of hearing failing which there shall be suo-moto contempt proceedings against the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University. The University's decision with regard to the approval/disapproval of the appointment of the petitioner with supporting reasons shall be produced on the adjourned date. Let a dasti copy of the order be handed over to the counsel for the parties for information and necessary compliance.” Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 states that the above reproduced order has been complied with and the petitioner has been reinstated in service instantly. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that meanwhile the petitioner has been appointed in the Government College at Sardulgarh and he is keen to continue in the College at Sardulgarh only. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the Government College at Sardulgarh and/or at any other place where he can be posted as per the terms and conditions of his appointment. Resultantly, the applicant in Civil Misc.No.11088 of 2010, namely, Arun Kumar son of Sh.Jagmal Singh who was meanwhile appointed as Physical Education C.W.P.No .19266 of 2008 4 Lecturer in J.D.College of Education, Muktsar, shall be allowed to continue in that College for the reason that the petitioner stands adjusted in the Government College, Sargulgarh and is not willing to jont at Muktsar. In view of the fact that the order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure P-7) has been held to be illegal, it is directed that the petitioner shall be treated to be in regular service for all intents and purposes but no arrears shall be paid to him for the interregnum period. Disposed of. Dasti. August 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE