Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6998 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University And 5 Others on 20 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83841
 
Reserved
 

 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19262 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- Banaras Hindu University And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikher Trivedi,Ujjawal Satsangi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun
 

 
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ujjawal Satsangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Raj Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been filed for following relief:

"(1) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the impugned order dated 26.8.2019 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the order passed by Respondent No. 2, reproduced in order dated 26.08.2019.

(2) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to allow the Petitioner to work under the aegis of Respondents on the post of Assistant Professor (FMM) (Contractual).

(3) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents to pay the honorarium to the Petitioner for discharging the responsibility of Administrative Warden for the Vidyanchal Hostel from 21.07.2017 to 07.03.2018.

(4) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents to pay the salary to the Petitioner for the period 2018-19."

3. The petitioner was engaged as Lecturer on contract basis in respondent-University. His engagement was subject to interview and selection process. Vide order dated 1.7.2009, Vice-Chancellor has approved the appointment of the petitioner and accordingly, issued the appointment letter on following terms:

"1. The engagement is purely on job contract for above specified period. It does not confer any right claim implicit or explicit for continuation/regularization/absorption against any post/position in the University.

2. The contract may be terminated by the University at any time without assigning any reason therefor.

3. In the event of any dispute arising out of this contract, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor, BiHU shall be final and binding on engaged person.

4. The engagement is for above job only and is not transferable

5. Your place of work is Rajiv Gandhi South Campus-Barkachha (Mirzapur) and you will have to stay there as and when the accommodation on the Rajiv Gandhi South Campos is provided to you.

6. They will have to abide by the rules, regulations and Orders of the University."

4. Though, the appointment is termed as a contractual Lecturer, but the appointment was on substantive vacancy and the same has been renewed year to year basis. Based on the performance of the petitioner and recommendations made by screening committee, his services were extended year by year till 2018. In fact, considering the good performance of the petitioner, he was also made as a member of the selection committee vide notification dated 18.01.2017, apart from granting extension for the year 2017-18.

5. While the things thus, when certain dispute arose pertaining to wardenship of the petitioner, the honorarium was not released. Despite his request for release of honorarium, certain group of people started making complaints and propagating falsehood against the petitioner. Despite his repeated requests when the respondents have not considered for extension of his renewal, left with no option, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 5895 of 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months. Consequent upon the said directions, the second respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.8.2019, which is assailed before this Court in the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after due selection, the petitioner was initially engaged on 01.07.2009 as Lecturer for B.Com Hons. Class on contract basis fixing emoluments of Rs. 20,000/-. Though, initially the engagement is for 10 months, but the same has been renewed year to year based on the performance and recommendations of the screening committee. Since 2009, the case of the petitioner have been recommended by the screening committee based on the performance and there are no adverse remarks whatsoever in these years. For some dispute amongst staff, the respondents have deliberately not recommended his candidature for the year 2018-19. The petitioner has made a representation bringing on record all the facts to the notice of second respondent but the second respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner through impugned order with the following observations:

"For the Session 2018-19, the Steering Committee did not recommend extension of contractual engagement of Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh citing the following specific comments:

"The Officer on Special Duty, RGSC had issued to Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh Letter No. RGSC/(Bark)MZP/2014-15/82 dated 14.10.2014 for not engaging class, Letter No. RGSC/(Bark)MZP/2018-19/310 dated 15.6.2018 regarding hair cutting in the Rajiv Gandhi South Campus and Letter No. RGSC/(Bark)MZP/2014-15/1492 dated 12.12.2014 regarding an act of indiscipline."

On the basis of these letters and some other non-documented issues, it is evident that Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh failed to perform his duties properly. As such in the interest of maintaining the quality of education and discipline at RGSC, he was not given extension of the employment in the academic session 2018-19.

Moreover, in the initial engagement Letter No. AA/VI-RAC/445 dated 1.7.2009, Point No. 2 clearly states that 'The contract may be terminated by the University at any time without assigning any reason there for."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the grounds taken for the rejection is surprising to the petitioner as the petitioner's case was considered and recommended based on the performance from 2010-11 to 2017-18. But in the impugned order, taking the letter dated 14.10.2014 into consideration the RGSC issued to the petitioner on 14.10.2014 for not engaging the particular class and letter dated 15.6.2018 regarding hair cutting in the Rajiv Gandhi South Campus and also letter dated 12.12.2014 regarding act of indiscipline. The second respondent has failed to take note of the recommendations of the screening committee from 2010-11 till 2017-18 and the screening committee has recommended the case of the petitioner for extension of the renewal. But surprisingly in the impugned order, the respondents have taken the contents of the letters dated 14.10.2014 and 12.12.2014 into consideration of minor issues, which shows vindictive attitude of the respondents against the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of Court at annexure-15 dated 19.7.2018 containing observations of the screening committee. In fact, in the said note, two members i.e. Assistant Registrar (Recruitment and Assessment Cell) and Deputy Registrar (Recruitment and Assessment Cell) have made following observations:

"A.R. (RAC)

The recommendations of the Review Committee in r/o Dr. A.S. Pandey and Dr. R.K. Singh may be seen at page 170 & 174/C, wherein no justification is recorded by the Review Committee for rejunction.

Keeping in view of above the request of Dr. R.K. Singh & Dr. A.S. Pandey placed at page-168 & 169/C may be considered taking into facts enumerated at above.

D.R. (RAC)

No justification/reason has been recorded while rejecting the candidature of Dr. R.K. Singh and Dr. Arun Shankar Pandey by the Review Committee . Therefore, comments of Review Committee may be invited on the issue of approval."

9. It is further submitted that two members of the committee i.e. A.R. and D.R. have clearly pointed out for recommending the candidature for extension of the petitioner's service, but second respondent while passing the impugned order, have not at all looked those objections. Apart from all these things, as the impugned orders are vindictive and stigmatic, and it affects rights of the petitioner. While passing such orders, the petitioner was neither given any opportunity nor any inquiry was instituted with regard to such allegations.

10. Though, the terms of appointment stipulates as temporary and it can be terminated at any point of time, but law says when the termination or non-extension of the services based on any allegation or remarks, which affects the rights of the petitioner and is stigmatic, it should be done only after proper inquiry and after following the procedure of law. But in the instant case, the respondents have not conducted any inquiry and not even followed the principle of natural justice before passing the impugned order.

11. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National Center For Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors., AIR 1999 SC 983. In the said case, the Apex Court has made following questions:

"(1) In what circumstances, the termination of a probationer's services can be said to be founded on misconduct and in what circumstances could it be said that the allegations were only the motive?

(2) When can an order of termination of a probationer be said to contain an express stigma?

(3) Can the stigma be gathered by referring back to proceedings referred to in the order of termination?

(4) To what relief?"

12. To support his contention, he has also relied on paragraphs 19, 20, 22, 27 and 33 of the above-referred judgment.

13. Finally based on the above observations, the Apex Court held that the words amounting to stigma need not be containing the basis for termination but may also be containing the order of termination to vitiate the order of termination.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions that even in this case, the impugned orders were passed on the basis of some letters issued during the year 2014-18 and it clearly indicates that order of termination issued imposing the penalty of termination of services on the ground of misconduct. As the same would affects the rights of the petitioner and the impugned order shows that it was not based on any inquiry or findings, hence, inescapable of these findings and foundation of the impugned order.

15. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Ragupathi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 346. Relevant paragraphs of which are reproduced herein:

"10. As per the affidavit of the said University, it could thus clearly be seen that, for every vacant post, the said University publishes an open advertisement inviting applications from all the interested candidates. It would further show that the appointments are made only after the candidates are selected by the Selection Committee. It is thus clear that though the nomenclature given to the appointment is contractual, candidates are required to undergo the entire selection process. It could further be seen that as per the affidavit of the said University itself, though the employees are technically appointed on a contractual basis, they get all the benefits and allowances as per the Rules applicable. The affidavit would further show that even according to the said University, for permanency in tenure, their terms and conditions of appointment are identical to those of regularly appointed candidates.

11. It is thus clear that the appellant was appointed after he underwent the entire selection process. Even as per the University, though the appointment shows that it is on a contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular basis. It could thus be seen that even for the appointment on a contractual basis in the said University, a candidate is required to undergo the entire selection process. Though he is appointed on a contractual basis, his terms and conditions are almost like a regular employee. It will be relevant to note that the Annual Performance Assessment Report (for short "APAR") of the appellant during the period 2012­13 show his performance to be outstanding. Every other parameter in his APAR is shown as excellent. With regard to his integrity, it is mentioned that there is nothing against the appellant adversely reflecting his integrity. It is further stated in his APAR that he enjoys a good reputation and his integrity is good.

12. It will be further relevant to refer to the counter affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is stated in paragraph (4) that the reasons for the appellant not being continued in the service are at Annexure P­9 (Page 116­120) and Annexure P­26 (Page 165­166).

13. Insofar as Annexure P­9 is concerned, it is an APAR to which we have already referred hereinabove. As such, the same cannot be a ground for non­continuation of the services of the appellant. As a matter of fact, thereafter, the appellant's services have been continued for another one year vide order dated 7th August 2013.

14. Insofar as the document at Annexure P­26 is concerned, it is an administrative warning issued to the appellant by the Dean of the said University on 10 th January 2014, which reads thus:

"Office of Dean, Planning & Research

GBU­013 /Dplng/09/2014­21 Dated: 10/1/14

Administrative Warning

It has been observed that you write on files simply "Put up file on such and such date". You have been continuing to do this even after my several verbal communications and warning against this. This is not only against ethics and official decorum but also against administrative norms. In response to my objections you told me that you have been instructed by the finance officer and the earlier officiating registrar, Mr. Pankaj Sharma to do so.

You have put this noting even on dates when I have been on leave. Photocopies of such recent notings are being attached herewith as evidence. There is also an overwriting in the date mentioned in one of the notings. All your above mentioned activities amount to gross irregularity in your work and also expose your conspirational character. This definitely makes you unfit to work on any responsible position.

You are being served this warning in writing to provide you an opportunity to improve your official working and conduct.

S/d

Anuradha Mishra

Dean P & R

15. It could thus be seen that though the communication of the said University dated 12 th August 2014 states that the appellant's contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case, it would reveal that his services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University. Since even according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant's services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground.

16. In the result, the impugned order dated 23 rd May 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and the communication passed by the said University dated 12 th August 2014, thereby discontinuing the services of the appellant, are quashed and set aside.

17. The appellant is directed to be reinstated with continuity in service. However, the appellant would not be entitled to any back wages."

16. In the above-referred judgment, the facts are identical to the instant case. In K. Ragupathi (supra) case, in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent University, the appellant was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer on contract basis, after undergoing selection process and subsequently, his term was not extended from 2014. He approached this Court and the writ petition came to be dismissed and ultimately, the matter has landed before the Apex Court. Even the stand before the Apex Court by the respondents is that though the appointments are contractual but their extension based on Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) and in the said case though earlier orders the term was extended based on APAR. But in the impugned order rejecting the case for extension of the petitioner services based on the communication of the administrative warning issued by the Dean. On that reason, petitioner's services were not extended/terminated. In such circumstances, the Apex Court has held that the appellant's services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the termination of the non-extension orders were quashed and directed to reinstate the appellant with continuity in service and he would not be entitled for any back wages.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the orders passed by this Court in Writ A No. 8467 of 2023 (Viplab Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.). In the said judgment, a co-ordinate Bench has set aside the termination order on the ground that the order being punitive in nature and has been passed without holding any inquiry regarding misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed his arguments that the impugned order is punitive in nature and stigmatic. The impugned order were passed stating that the act of indiscipline is stigmatic. It is not a plain termination. Hence, as observed by the Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) that the words mentioned in the impugned order is stigmatic. Hence, it vitiates. Further as held by the Apex Court in K. Ragupathi (supra) case that based on the letter of Dean, if the termination/non-extension of contractual lecturer made without holding any inquiry and without following principles of natural justice is bad. Accordingly, the orders were set aside. Even in the instant case, though the petitioner's services were extended from 2010-11 to 2017-18 but surprisingly, terminated the services in 2018 based on the letters of 2014 that too based on some petty/minor allegation. There is no record with regard to any inquiry either preliminary or domestic inquiry. Apart from that the respondents have not issued any notice calling explanation with regard to the said incident before taking any action. In fact, when the two members of the screening committee have taken strong objection with regard to the non-recommending the case of the petitioner. In these circumstances, as the impugned orders are contrary to the ratio decided by the Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) and also as has held in K. Ragupathi (supra). Because the respondents have not conducted any inquiry with regard to allegation of misconduct or have not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order. Hence, requested to quash the said orders and requested to direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as contract Lecturer in the said University.

18. Replying to the same, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents based on the averments made in the counter affidavit has submitted that the constitution of a selection committee for contractual appointment is quite different from the committee constituted for regular appointment. Based on the recommendation of the selection committee for contractual post would be approved by the screening committee at faculty level, but for regular post, the recommendations of the selection committee would be approved by the executive council and the allowances and benefits are also different from contractual teachers to the other regular teachers and the service conditions of regular teachers would governed by the UGC regulations. But none of the above are applicable to the contractual engagement.

19. Learned counsel has mainly stressed his submissions based on the engagement letter dated 1.7.2009. According to condition no.2, the contract may be terminated by the respondent at any point of time without assigning any reasons thereof. According to the said condition, termination of services of the contractual lecturers can be done by the University without assigning any reason.

20. Here also, the services of the petitioner has been extended based on the recommendation of the screening committee where the screening committee has not recommended his case for the year 2018-19, his services were discontinued. Hence, he has no right to question for non-extension of his contractual appointment, it is for the University to extend the services. Further as the respondent-University being a Central University they have followed the regulations while extending the services of the contractual teachers. But in the instant case as there is no recommendation from the screening committee, the respondents have discontinued the petitioner's services and it cannot be assailed in the writ petition.

21. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the observations made by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi (3) and Others, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. According to paragraph 12 and 43 of the judgment, if the terms of the contractual appointment comes to an end at the end of completion period. Accordingly, temporary or contractual employee cannot claim to be made permanent on expiry of term of the appointment. Further, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the ratio of K. Ragupathi (supra) is not applicable in the instant case, as in the abovesaid case, the respondent-University was a State University but in the instant case, the respondent University is a Central University. Hence, the abovesaid case law is not applicable to the Central University.

22. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on contract basis in 2009 and his services were extended year to year till 2017. On perusal of the impugned order, if the respondents have not extended services of the petitioner merely based on non-recommendation of the screening committee that could be in a different footing. But in the instant case, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for extension based on three letters, which were of 14.10.2014, 12.12.2014 and 15.6.2018. The allegations in the impugned order is based on the above letters and some other non-documented issues and findings in the impugned order shows that termination was made to maintain quality of education. Based on the letters of the year 2014, the respondents cannot make such findings, which decide the character of the petitioner. To came to such conclusion, the respondents have neither conducted any inquiry nor followed the principles of natural justice. It has further to note that though the respondents have relied on the letters dated 14.10.2014 and 12.12.2014, but it is surprised to note that even after 2014, the respondents have extended the services of the petitioner for four years. Hence, it cannot said that the interest of maintaining quality education with regard to the petitioner, if the respondents want to discontinue the services of the petitioner to maintain quality education, it should have been made in the year 2015-16 itself. But if the respondents have continued the services of the petitioner for 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, they ought not to have rejected the extension or terminated the services of the petitioner from 2018-19 onwards.

23. This Court is not agreeing with the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents as the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in K. Ragupathi (supra) is not applicable to the respondent-University as the same is Central University. The ratio decided by the Apex Court in K. Ragupathi (supra) is that if the termination orders are punitive or stigmatic, while passing such orders, the authorities has to follow the procedure by conducting proper inquiry and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said principle is applicable not only to the said University but also to all institutions. On perusal of the impugned order, it goes without saying that the same is contrary to the above ratio decided by the Apex Court in K. Ragupathi (supra) and Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra). In those cases, the Courts have set aside termination orders with the finding that the impugned termination orders are punitive and stigmatic and the said orders were passed without conducting proper inquiry or following the principles of natural justice.

24. Considering the facts and also the observations made by the Apex Court in the both the abovementioned judgments, as such impugned orders are passed based on allegation, which are punitive and stigmatic. Hence, the same are contrary to the abovementioned judgments. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.8.2019 passed by respondent no.3 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into services without any backwages.

25. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Order Date :- 20.05.2025

Noman

(Donadi Ramesh,J.)