Allahabad High Court directs Shakuntala Mishra University to reinstate 5 teachers terminated after 5 years of service

The Allahabad High Court while observing that the petitioner was fully qualified for being appointed and did not lack any qualification as alleged, as such, the orders is rendered illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside the orders of Dr Shakuntala Mishra University by which it had terminated five teachers after seven years in service.

A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed this order while hearing petitions filed by Dr Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and others.

The challenge has been made in this bunch of writ petitions to the order of cancellation of selection resulting in termination of their services vide dated 06/07/2022 passed by the respondent University after conducting an enquiry. The common ground for cancellation of their selection was the lack of essential qualifications at the time of their selection with regard to their educational qualifications in the year 2014.

In the bunch of writ petitions all the petitioners are teachers having been selected in the Dr Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University pursuant to the advertisement dated 17/02/2014. They submitted relevant documents with regard to the qualifications and appeared before a screening committee, and subsequently appeared in the interview before the selection committee which recommended their candidature for appointment. The recommendations were duly placed before the Executive Council of the University pursuant to which they were appointed and were continuing till their services were terminated by means of the impugned orders in the respective writ petitions.

The impugned orders of cancellation of selection have been passed by the Vice Chancellor of Dr Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow which very candidly recites that in the 5th meeting of the General Body an enquiry was instituted against the previous Vice Chancellor Dr Nishith Rai and all the charges against him were proved and he was found guilty of administrative and financial irregularities. After seeking legal opinion, it was decided that all the appointments made during his tenure would be enquired on a case-to-case basis.

It further states that the executive committee had appointed a three-member committee which has submitted its report where it has been found that the appointments were made without following the rules of reservation, and no approval was sought from the visitor for appointment of the panel of experts and that persons were appointed despite the fact that they did not have the requisite API score which was contrary to the rules.

The Executive Council in its 35th meeting held on 07/ 10/ 2021 decided to constitute a 2-member committee consisting of 2 retired Judges of the High Court to enquire into all the appointments made by the erstwhile Vice Chancellor. The enquiry was conducted by the said committee who submitted their report which was placed before the Executive Council and was duly approved in its 38th meeting.

Show cause notice was given to the petitioners seeking their response. The response was placed before another committee consisting of a retired High Court Judge and subject specialist namely Professor Dhananjai Yadav, in Charge of the Recruitment Cell, Allahabad Central University, Prayagraj. The committee made its recommendations on 9.6.2022 to the University, which was accepted by the executive committee. The committee concluded that the petitioners did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications on the date of the advertisement and hence their services were terminated.

It was further provided that considering that all the petitioners have worked for a period of 6–7 years, they would be eligible to apply in the fresh advertisement which would be issued and in case they are selected, their pay and allowances would be protected.

The Court noted that,

In the case, the entire controversy has its roots in the resolution passed by the General body of the University on 25/01/2019. In the said meeting the enquiry report submitted by Justice (Retd) Shailendra Saxena was considered. The enquiry instituted against the former Vice Chancellor Dr Nishith Rai was conducted by Justice (Retd) Shailendra Saxena. In the said enquiry report submitted to the General body of university the allegations against the former Vice Chancellor were proved. While accepting the said enquiry report, the General body also resolved that action would be taken with regard to all the irregularities including technical, administrative or financial committed by the former Vice Chancellor after seeking legal opinion.

The General body of the University in its meeting held on 16/09/2021 decided to enquire into the appointments made by the former Vice Chancellor, in pursuance to which the Executive Council in its 35th meeting dated 17/10/2021 had resolved to have the matter relating to the appointments inquired by a committee consisting of 2 former judges of the High Court and accordingly a committee consisting of Justice (Retd) S.V.S Rathore and Justice (Retd) Pratyush Kumar was constituted for the purpose. The General body in its resolution dated 16/09/2021 had limited the scope of enquiry only to the procedure followed in making the appointments to the academic and non-academic posts.

In light of the above, the Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner was fully qualified for being appointed and did not lack any qualification as alleged, as such, the impugned order is rendered illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

The Court observed that,

From the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the petitioner was fully qualified, his qualifications were duly looked into by the selection committee recommended his candidature for appointment to the post of Professor in History. There is no reason for a review of his qualifications after a period of 7 years, in absence of any allegations of fraud and misconduct having been committed by the petitioner, the cancellation of his selection is clearly illegal and arbitrary and libel to be set aside.

The petitioners have assailed the order of termination on the ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice, while the respondent university on the other hand have submitted that as the petitioners do not possess the minimum eligibility qualifications and hence no purpose would have been served by giving an opportunity for hearing. Having duly considered the rival contentions the Court is of the considered view that it is only after giving an opportunity of hearing that the decision can be arrived at as to whether the petitioners fulfilled all the qualifications or not. By declaring that they do not fulfil the qualifications, would amount to prejudging the issue which is not permissible.

As we have already discussed the individual cases and this Court is of the considered view that all the petitioners are duly qualified and their services could not be terminated. It was mandatory for the respondents to have followed the proper procedure and the rules and to have given them proper opportunity of hearing before terminating their services. As stated by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above the principle of natural justice does not have any exceptions, and hence, in the case also proper opportunity of hearing should have been given, and the procedure prescribed should have been followed.

It is only where without any inquiry and from bare perusal of the record, it is abundantly apparent that a person does not hold qualifications then in those rare cases the applicability of the principles of natural justice may be dispensed with but where inquiry has to be conducted to determine the issue and it is not apparent from bare perusal of the records as to whether the candidate fulfils the qualifications and the matter is debatable then no order should be passed without giving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned person.

Copy of the enquiry report was not given to the petitioners, and the authority which finally decided the question regarding the eligibility qualifications never given them an opportunity of hearing, and consequently we have no hesitation in holding that the entire procedure was illegal and arbitrary and in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

“In the case, there is no allegation that the petitioners had misrepresented their educational qualifications or were somehow responsible for getting themselves appointed. In absence of any mistake or misrepresentation having been committed by the petitioners, whether the services can be terminated after a long period of seven years after the due selection, is a prime issue before the Court in the petitions.

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) to the facts of the present case this Court of the considered opinion that after permitting a person to continue in service for a long time, the selection cannot be cancelled, or services cannot be terminated due to some infirmities in the selection, and accordingly the case of the petitioners are fully covered by the judgement of the Supreme Court as discussed above”, the Court further observed while allowing the petitions.

“The orders dated 06.07.2022 with respect to all the petitioners challenged in all the writ petitions, forming part of the bunch, are set aside. The respondent University is directed to reinstate the petitioners forthwith. Considering the fact that they have been working for the last 6 to 7 years and the orders of termination have been held to be illegal and arbitrary, they are entitled to all consequential benefits including the back wages from the date of termination of their services”, the order reads.

The post Allahabad High Court directs Shakuntala Mishra University to reinstate 5 teachers terminated after 5 years of service appeared first on India Legal.

from India Legal https://ift.tt/CRSbFqX