The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has upheld the verdict of a single-judge bench that found the removal of the law officer and five teachers of Dr Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University to be illegal.
The Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Dr Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University Through Its Registrar and 3 Others.
The bunch of Special Appeals have been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The five Special Appeals have been filed against a common order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Single Judge.
However, Special Appeal (Dr Shakuntala Mishra National rehabilitation University & others Vs Alok Mishra & Anr) although has been filed against order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the Single Judge in writ petition, but on close scrutiny of the order 24.05.2023, subject matter of Special Appeal would reveal that the order dated 24.05.2023 is wholly premised and based on the common judgment/order dated 08.03.2023 (supra).
The precincts of these special appeals lie in the challenge laid by these individuals to the termination/cancellation of their services/selection vide order dated 06.07.2022 by the appellants/University on common grounds of lack of essential qualification at the time of their selection with regard to their educational qualifications and/or experience in the year 2014.
The facts of the case are that all the individual respondents are teachers having been selected in the Dr Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.02.2014.
Apparently, these individuals/respondents submitted relevant documents with regard to their qualifications and experiences and also appeared before a Screening Committee, and subsequently appeared in the interview before the Selection Committee which recommended their candidature for appointment.
The recommendations, thereafter, were placed before the Executive Council of the University, pursuant to which they were appointed and after being in probation, their services were confirmed and ever since then these private respondents have been continuing to render their services until their selections were cancelled by means of an order, which was impugned by these private respondents in the respective writ petitions filed before the Single Judge.
According to the appellants/University, the orders of cancellation of selection have been passed by the ViceChancellor of Dr Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow primarily for the reason that in the meeting of the General Body of the University, 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.
As a consequence of that, the appellants/University after seeking legal opinion, decided that all the appointments made during Dr Nishith Rai’s tenure would be enquired on a case-to-case basis. It seems thereafter the Executive Committee of the University had appointed a three-member Committee, which has submitted its report, where it has been found that the appointments of the private respondents were made without following the rules of qualification, reservation etc and most importantly, no approval was sought from the Visitor for appointment of the panel of experts and that these people were appointed despite the fact that they did not have the requisite qualification, experience, API score etc which was contrary to the rules on the date of their selection.
It has been further averred that the Executive Council in its 35th meeting held on 07.10.2021 decided to constitute a two member committee consisting of two 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.
Pursuant to the aforesaid acceptance of the report, show cause notice was given to the individuals/respondents seeking their response. The response was placed before another committee consisting of a retired High Court Judge and subject specialist. The Committee, thereafter, made its recommendations on 9.6.2022 to the University, which was accepted by the Executive Committee. The Committee concluded that these private respondents apparently did not fulfil the prescribed qualifications on the date of the advertisement and hence their services were cancelled/ terminated.
It was further provided by the University that on considering that all the private respondents 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 said individuals termination/cancellation of selection letter was interdicted by the respondents/writ petitioners before the Single Judge, which passed a very detailed impugned judgment, discussing every aspect of the matter and concluded that the cancellation/ termination of these private respondents by the appellants/University was wrong and as such after quashing the individual impugned order of termination, also directed for reinstatement along with all consequential benefits including back wages from the date of termination vide a common dated 08.03.2023 (supra).
The Court observed that,
Having regard to the contentions of the parties and going through the record available before us in the above-captioned special appeals, the Court, at the outset, is of the view that basically the proceedings conducted by the appellant/ University, which is the subject matter of these appeals, shows its overzealousness to annul the decision of the former ViceChancellor, which is writ large in the manner they have acted against the private respondent/writ petitioner, which has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The University ought to have been careful and circumspect in their approach and should have followed the procedure and norms, especially when these private respondents have been in service for more than 7/8 years and the University being an educational institution meant for higher learning which also deals with special students who require much more care, attention and sensitivity than any other University. The Court does not wish to sound sermonically, however, the fact of the matter remains that the issues, which are being agitated by the University in the special appeal, could have been easily averted, had the appellant/ University acted without any prejudice to the rights of these private respondents.
The court found that the Single Judge, after considering the submission of both the parties, returned a finding that the allegations as enumerated in the petitions related to the proceedings having been conducted against the petitioner in gross violations of principles of natural justice, as hearing was afforded by one Committee while the decision was taken by the Executive Council, which the Single Judge found to be contrary to all cannons of the decision-making process. The hinge of the observation by the Single Judge appears to be based on the fact that since the writ petitioner has been working pursuant to the selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee for last 6 to 7 years, the termination of the services, on the face of it, appeared to be illegal and arbitrary and accordingly the Single Judge held that the bar of alternate remedy does not operate against the petitioner.
Herein, the appellant has merely repeated the arguments on availability of efficacious remedy and the Court does not find any ground for arriving at a different view as has been already held by the Single Judge.
In view of the aforesaid, since the Court is of the view that on the facts of the case, the private respondent/writ petitioner has made out an exceptional case for entertainment of his individual writ petition before the High Court, the present objection of the appellant relating to the maintainability of the petition is overruled.
The Court further found that merely general grounds have been agitated by the appellants in the appeals, which have already been dealt with by the court. Thus, the Court did not find any plausible grounds agitated by the appellants/University to have any substance and as such the court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Single Judge.
The Court also found that the Single judge has returned a finding that the private respondent/writ petitioner was not at fault and yet he was visited with illegal termination merely because there had been selected during the tenure of a Vice Chancellor, against whom certain allegations have been made. Besides the fact that no charges-sheet or inquiry was conducted as has been envisaged under the relevant rules of the University, the principle of Natural Justice was also not followed by the University while passing the termination order.
Since, the Court has upheld the findings of the Single Judge and has found the said to have been passed on sound legal principles, the Court did not find any reasons as to why the consequential relief, including back wages should not be granted to private respondent.
“Thus, the Court is of the view that once a selection is duly made, then in case there are any shortcomings in the said selection which is of such a nature that the same cannot be condoned, action has to be taken expeditiously. In the case, there is no allegation that the petitioner/ private respondent had misrepresented about their educational qualifications or their experience or where in any manner misconducted themselves in obtaining selection in the University. In absence of any fraud or misrepresentation having been committed by the writ petitioner/private respondent, the selection cannot be cancelled after a long period of seven years. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the findings arrived by the Single Judge in the order dated 08/05/2023 and the order dated 24.05.2023”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.