Snatak Mahavidyalaya Shikshan ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1397 Chatt

                                                1


                                                                                    NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                    WPS No. 3891 of 2021
     1.      Snatak Mahavidyalaya Shikshan Samiti Through Its Secretary, D. P.
             Vipra College, Near Old High Court, Bilaspur District Bilaspur
             Chhattisgarh
     2.      Governing Body Of D. P. Vipra Collage Constituted Under Collage
             Code-Statute 28 Through The Secretary, D. P. Vipra College, Near
             Old High Court, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
     3.      D. P. Vipra College Through Its Principal, Near Old High Court,
             Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
     4.      Dr. Smt. Anju Shukla W/o Shri Pramod Shukla Aged About 59 Years
             Principal D. P. Vipra, College, Near Old High Court, Bilaspur District
             Bilaspur Chhattisgarh And R/o Near Pachri Ghat, Juna Bilaspur
             Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                                       ---- Petitioners
                                              Versus
     1.      State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
             Education, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya
             Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
     2.      Atal Bihri Vajpayee University Bilaspur Through Its Registrar Old
             High Court Premises Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
     3.      Dr. Suchi Choudhary W/o Shri Ritesh Kumar Chaudhari Aged About
             47 Years R/o C/o Mr. D.K. Sinha, 140, Kunj Bhavan Gond, Para
             Subhash Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
                                                           ----Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate For State : Smt. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28/07/2021

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the notification

passed by the respondent No.2 dated 14.07.2021. For

understanding the factual matrix of the case it would be relevant at

this juncture to quote the impugned notification under challenge in

the present writ petition:

vf/klwpuk

jkT;iky ds voj lfpo] N-x- 'kklu] jktHkou ls izkIr i= [email protected] [email protected]@[email protected]@;w&3] jk;iqj] fnukad 29-06-2021 ds vuqdze esa MkW- lqfp pkS/kjh] lgk;d izk/;kid ¼euksfoKku½ dks Mh-ih- foiz egkfo|ky;] fcykliqj }kjk vfuok;Z lsokfuo`fRr fd;s tkus ,oa lsok esa iqu% cgkyh rFkk egkfo|ky; f'k{k.k lfefr dh tkap ds fo"k; esa izkIr i= ds vuqlkj fcUnqokj tkap ds fy, ekuuh; dqyifr egksn; }kjk fuEukuqlkj ikap lnL;h; tkap lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k gS%&

1- MkW- ,l-vkj- deys'k & la;kstd {ks=h; vij lapkyd ,oa izkpk;Z 'kkldh; bZ-vkj-vkj- foKku LukrdksRrj egkfo|ky;] fcykliqj] N-x-

           2- MkW- vkj-ds- oekZ                                                      & lnL;
              izkpk;Z]

'kkldh; ekrk 'kcjh uohu dU;k egkfo|ky;] fcykliqj

3- MkW- T;kfr jkuh flax & lnL;

izkpk;Z] 'kkldh; ts-ih- oekZ [email protected]; egkfo|ky;] fcykliqj

4- MkW- ,l-,y- fujkyk & lnL;

izkpk;Z] 'kkldh; fcyklk dU;k LukrdksRrj egkfo|ky;] fcykliqj

5- MkW- vkbZ-ih- xqIrk & lnL;

izkpk;Z] 'kkldh; ohjkaxuk voarh ckbZ yks/kh egkfo|ky;] iFkfj;k

Vhi%& tkap lfefr ds la;kstd d`i;k 'ks"k lnL;ksa ls leUo; LFkkfir dj mijksDrkuqlkj izkIr i= ds vk/kkj ij fcUnqokj tkap dj izfrosnu fo'ofo|ky;

                   dks 'kh?kz miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaA

           layXu%& mijksDrkuqlkj izkIr i= dh Nk;k                             vkns'kkuqlkj]
                   izfr la;kstd gsrq                                             [email protected]&
                                                                               14-07-21
                                                                               dqylfpo

2. The facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition seems to

be the action on the part of the petitioners No. 2 & 3, whereby the

services of the respondent No.3 was placed under compulsory

retirement. The respondent No.3 was working under the petitioners

No. 2 & 3 on the post of Assistant Professor (Psychology). In due

course of time, the establishment decided to close down the

Department of Psychology. The closure of the Department of

Psychology was subjected to challenge in a Public Interest

Litigation before this High Court in WP (PIL) No. 42/2019.

Meanwhile, the petitioners No.2 & 3 decided to give compulsory

retirement to the respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant

Professor (Psychology).

3. Meanwhile, it appears that the respondent No.3, the Assistant

Professor who was given compulsory retirement made a

representation to His Excellency the Governor in the capacity of the

Chancellor of the University. On scrutiny of the representation of the

respondent No.3, the office of His Excellency the Governor sent the

matter to the respondent No.2-University for submitting his report.

On receipt of the said letter from the office of the Governor/

Chancellor, the respondent No.2-University has constituted a

Committee consisting of 5 persons to look into the decision of the

petitioner No.2 so far as awarding compulsory retirement and also

the claim of the respondent No.3 for being reinstated in service. It is

this action on the part of the respondent No.2 Annexure P/1 dated

14.07.2021, which has been assailed in the present writ petition.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since

the decision to close down the Department of Psychology has

already been put to test before the High Court in a PIL i.e. WP (PIL)

No. 42/2019 and which has been dismissed by the Division Bench

of this Court on 21.06.2019, the said judgment becomes judgment

in rem and becomes binding on all the parties and it also becomes

binding so far as the Chancellor of the University is concerned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once when

the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition on the aspect of

closing down of the Department of Psychology, neither the

Governor, nor the University had any right, jurisdiction or power to

issue the impugned notification Annexure P/1 dated 14.07.2021. It

was also the contention of the petitioner that the impugned

notification also has been passed without hearing the petitioners or

giving an opportunity to the petitioners.

6. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the

petitioners and on perusal of the impugned notification and the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP (PIL)

No. 42/2019 what is evidently cleared is that the PIL which was filed

before the High Court was in respect of closure of the Department

of Psychology in the petitioners No.2 & 3-establishment. The

impugned notification Annexure P/1 has been passed on the issue

of the decision of the petitioners No.2 & 3 in imposing compulsory

retirement upon the respondent No.3 and the claim of the

respondent No.3 for consequential benefits.

7. What has to be appreciated at this juncture is that closure of a

Department in a college is an entirely different subject matter, when

compared to a decision of imposing compulsory retirement to one of

the teaching faculties of an educational institution. Merely because

the Division Bench has affirmed the decision of the educational

institution so far as closure of the Department of Psychology by

itself does not mean that the action on the part of the educational

institution in imposing compulsory retirement to the respondent

No.3 also has got tested by the High Court and has been approved

or affirmed. Closure of the Department of Psychology and

imposition of compulsory retirement to the respondent No.3 are two

different independent cause of action and two different actions

taken under entirely different perspectives. Both are decisions are

taken under entirely different rules and regulations, therefore only

because the Division Bench has approved or affirmed the decision

of the petitioners No. 2 & 3-educational institution of closing down of

the Department of Psychology would not mean that the Assistant

Professor who has been inflicted with an order of compulsory

retirement looses his right for all times to come to assail the action

of imposing compulsory retirement before the higher authorities or

before any competent Court of law as the case may be.

8. The respondent No.3 upon being inflicted with an order of

compulsory retirement, thought it fit for representing before the

Chancellor and in the process appears to have made a

representation or appeal to the Chancellor in respect of the alleged

action of compulsory retirement inflicted by the petitioners No.2 & 3.

The Governor who happens to be the Chancellor of the University

took note of the representation/appeal of the respondent No.3 and

asked the University under which the petitioners No.2 & 3-

establishment is to look into the matter. From the bare perusal of

the impugned order it appears that the respondent No.2-University

on receipt of the letter from the office of His Excellency the

Governor thought it fit for getting a report on the subject matter and

it was for this reason that it appears that a Committee has been

established.

9. What is also pertinent to mention at this juncture is that the plain

reading of Annexure P/1 would also reveal that there is no order as

such passed by the University against any of the petitioners. All that

the University has done is that of constituting of a Committee on the

decision of the petitioners No.2 & 3 in imposing compulsory

retirement upon the respondent No.3 and also in respect of the

educational institution.

10. Since it is only an order of appointment of a Committee to look into

the allegations against the petitioners No. 2 & 3-establishment and

the decision of placing the respondent No.3 under the compulsory

retirement, it goes without saying that the Committee so constituted

would be giving its report or would be submitting the finding of facts

only after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or the

concerned authorities of the institutions are concerned.

11. It would be too premature at this juncture for the Writ Court to

interfere with the impugned notification in its present form,

particularly when it is only an order to conduct an inquiry and submit

its report. No order adverse to the interest of the petitioners or an

action having an adverse civil consequence appears to have been

passed vide the impugned notification dated 14.07.2021.

12. The cause of action for the petitioners to be aggrieved of, would

arise only based upon the inquiry report if there is any further

direction for the petitioners to comply with, which if may not be

acceptable to the petitioners. Unless there is any specific direction

for compliance, the scope of judicial review to the notification under

challenge is too minimal.

13. Reserving the rights of the petitioners to approach the Court in the

event of any adverse order at a letter stage is passed, this Court at

this juncture does not find any merits in the writ petition and the

petition therefore deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved