2020 (10) TMI 1395 - HC - Indian Laws

University employee's termination quashed after Chancellor attempts to review own 8-year-old appointment decision

Vijay Kumar Sinha Versus Vinoba Bhave University through its Vice Chancellor, Hazaribagh; Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, Ranchi

Vijay Kumar Sinha Versus Vinoba Bhave University through its Vice Chancellor, Hazaribagh; Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand Public ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the termination of the petitioner's services.2. Compliance with the provisions of the Jharkhand State University Act.3. Authority of the Chancellor to review its own decision after a significant lapse of time.4. The role and recommendations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).5. The impact of the absence of a requisition from Vinoba Bhave University for the appointment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Termination of the Petitioner's Services:- The petitioner challenged the termination of his services, arguing that the termination was not in consonance with the law. The court found that the termination was based on grounds that had already been adjudicated and resolved prior to the petitioner's appointment. The petitioner's appointment had been confirmed by the Syndicate of Vinoba Bhave University after the completion of the probation period, and no fresh grounds were presented to justify the termination. The court concluded that the decision to terminate the petitioner's services was not justified and was fit to be quashed.2. Compliance with the Provisions of the Jharkhand State University Act:- The petitioner argued that the provisions under Section 57(2)(C) of the University Act were complied with, as the vacancy position for the Assistant Registrar was communicated to the JPSC before appointments were made. The court agreed, noting that the necessary procedures were followed, and the advertisement clearly indicated that the posts could be adjusted among the three universities. The court found that the appointment process was conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the University Act.3. Authority of the Chancellor to Review its Own Decision:- The court examined whether the Chancellor had the authority to review its own decision after an eight-year lapse. It referenced several precedents, emphasizing that while the Chancellor has the power to review decisions, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. The court determined that the eight-year delay in reviewing the decision was not reasonable, especially since the grounds for termination had been previously resolved. The court concluded that the Chancellor's decision to review and terminate the petitioner's appointment was not in accordance with the law.4. The Role and Recommendations of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC):- The JPSC had recommended the petitioner for the appointment, and the appointing authority, Vinoba Bhave University, had initially complied with this recommendation. The court noted that while the appointing authority has the power to differ from the JPSC's recommendation, it must do so with valid reasons. In this case, the court found no new reasons to justify deviating from the JPSC's recommendation, further supporting the validity of the petitioner's appointment.5. The Impact of the Absence of a Requisition from Vinoba Bhave University:- The petitioner argued that the absence of a formal requisition from Vinoba Bhave University did not invalidate the appointment, as the advertisement was known to all relevant universities and the vacancy was communicated to the JPSC. The court found that the university's actions and the subsequent approval of the appointment by the Syndicate indicated acceptance of the process. The court rejected the argument that the lack of a requisition invalidated the appointment.Conclusion:The court quashed the impugned order of termination, directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner and provide all consequential benefits within four months. The writ application was allowed, and the interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.