Telangana High Court
Dr. Khaleel Ahmad vs The Registrar on 7 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION Nos.4467 and 4510 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue raised in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2) Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing Notice No.MANUU/ER-I(A)/F.270/2023-24/1554, dated 25.01.2024, and Notice No.MANUU/ER-I(A)/F.272/2023-24/1552, dated 25.01.2024, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions.
3) Vide impugned notices, the respondents have communicated to the petitioners as under:
"...Needless to mention that your service at Dept. of CS & IT, MANUU will be affected as a result of the implementation of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order. This communication should be treated as Notice as contemplated in Clause-7 of Service Agreement. Further, if any order/direction is received from the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, shall be implemented accordingly."
4) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that pursuant to the Notification dated 06.12.2013 issued by the respondent- University, the petitioners have applied for the post of Assistant Professor-Information Technology, Department of CS & IT. After undergoing due process of selection and after verification of the qualification certificates, petitioners were issued offer letters. 2
PK,J W.P.Nos.4467 & 4510 of 2024 Accordingly, on 03.02.2014, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Professor. At the time of appointment of the petitioners, the respondents have nowhere stated that the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Professor was subject to the outcome of pending litigation. Further, the respondents have also declared their probation on 13.03.2015, upgraded them from Stage-I to Stage-II on 16.11.2018, from Stage-II to Stage-III on 28.07.2023 under Career Advancement Scheme, and granted study leave to the petitioner in W.P. No.4467 of 2024 for a period of six months for undertaking research fellowship program in Italy. In spite of the same, the respondents have issued the impugned notices stating that their services will be affected as a result of implementation of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, though the petitioners were appointed in the year 2013, only in the year 2017 for the first time they were informed that continuation of their appointment will be subject to the outcome of the proposed SLP. When the appointment of the petitioners itself is not a conditional appointment, after a period of four years that too after declaration of their probation etc. the respondents cannot make their appointment as a conditional appointment. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to issue necessary directions to the respondents.
3
PK,J W.P.Nos.4467 & 4510 of 2024
5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the petitioners have approached this Court by suppressing the material facts and the writ petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that pursuant to the termination of services of three Assistant Professors viz., Md. Abdul Saifulla, Avula Satya Sai Kumar, Dr. Kahkashan Tabassum, vide termination orders dated 02.12.2013, who were selected through earlier notification issued in September, 2011, the respondents have issued a fresh notification dated 06.12.2013 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor- Information Technology, Department of CS & IT and thereafter the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors and accordingly they joined the services of the University. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Professors, whose services were terminated vide termination orders dated 02.12.2013, have challenged the termination orders before this Court by filing W.P. Nos.36581, 37714 and 38240 of 2013. Vide common order dated 22.09.2017 this Court has allowed the said Writ Petitions. Further, the Writ Appeals and SLPs filed by the University before the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Supreme Court were dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Appeals by the Division Bench was also informed to petitioners. In spite of the same, the petitioners did not choose to come on record in the said proceedings and thereby consented to abide by the outcome of the proceedings of the Court. 4
PK,J W.P.Nos.4467 & 4510 of 2024 Therefore, the petitioners have no right to object the proceedings initiated by the respondent University. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP, the impugned notices were issued to the petitioners since the beneficiaries of the SLP have to be reinstated into service, for which purpose, the services of the petitioners have to be disturbed necessarily. Hence, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned show cause notices and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions as devoid of merits.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record.
7) A perusal of the record reveals that after due process of selection, Avula Satya Sai Kumar, Dr. Kahkashan Tabbasum and Md. Abdul Saifulla were selected and appointed as Assistant Professors by the respondent University on 08.12.2011 with a condition that they should pass NET/SET within a period of two years therefrom. Though the said candidates have appeared for NET/SET within the stipulated time, the results were declared after expiry of the said period of two years. During the interregnum period, the respondent-University has terminated the services of the said individuals vide orders dated 02.12.2013. Aggrieved by the same, they filed W.P. Nos.36581, 37714 and 38240 of 2013 and vide common order dated 22.09.2017, the said writ petitions were 5 PK,J W.P.Nos.4467 & 4510 of 2024 allowed and termination orders dated 02.12.2013 were set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In the meanwhile, the respondent- University has issued a fresh notification for recruitment to the said posts on 06.12.2013. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners and another were appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Computer Science and Information Technology on 03.02.2014. Aggrieved by the common order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos.36581, 37714 and 38240 of 2013, the University has preferred Writ Appeal Nos.1649, 1653 and 1656 of 2017 and the same were dismissed on 08.11.2017 confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, the respondent-University has filed Civil Appeal Nos.7509, 7510 and 7511 of 2023 and the same were dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.11.2023 with a direction to comply the order of the High Court within one month thereof. In pursuance to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondent University has issued the impugned notices, dated 25.01.2024, for which, the petitioners have submitted their reply to the respondent University on 05.02.2024. While the explanation is pending with the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court without waiting for the decision of the University.
6
PK,J W.P.Nos.4467 & 4510 of 2024
8) In this context it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 1 wherein it has been held as under:
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge- sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ Jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly 1 (2006) 12 SCC 28 7 PK,J W.P.Nos.4467 & 4510 of 2024 without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
(emphasis added)
9) In view of the above settled principle of law and considering the fact that the explanation submitted by the petitioners is still pending with the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitions are prematured.
10) Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed as prematured. However, this order does not preclude the respondent-University in taking appropriate decision insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs.
__________________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 07.06.2024 sur