Tarun Kumar Roy vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2235 Del

*             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Writ Petition (Civil) No.6441/2007

                                           Reserved on : 19.05.2009

                                       Date of Decision : 25.05.2009

Tarun Kumar Roy                                   ......Petitioner
                          Through : Mr. Y.S. Chauhan, Advocate.

                                  Versus

University of Delhi & Ors.                  ...... Respondents
                    Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya for R-1&2
                              Mr. S.K. Pandey for R-4, Adv.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?                     YES
2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?          NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?                                   NO

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the

letter dated 16th August, 2007 issued by the respondent no. 2

terminating his services. It has been further prayed in the writ

petition that he be reinstated with all consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 1st April, 2005 a

post by the name of Nature Education Officer was advertised in the

Bio-diversity Park of DDA, a programme supported by Centre for

Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, School of

Environmental Studies, University of Delhi. The petitioner applied for

the said post and he was selected vide letter dated 27th June, 2005.

The petitioner was offered the appointment as Nature Education

Officer in the aforesaid Project. It was specifically mentioned that he

would get consolidated salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and the

appointment would be temporary but is likely to be continue. On 14th

July, 2005 the petitioner sent his acceptance to the said offer of

appointment and joined on 28th July, 2005. The case of the petitioner

is that on 16th August, 2007 Prof. C. R. Babu, Project-in-Charge,

Yamuna Biodiversity Park issued a letter to the petitioner that w.e.f 1st

September, 2007 petitioner's services are no longer required, and

therefore, he must handover any permanent items issued against his

name.

3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that

the aforesaid order is bad law. Firstly, it is alleged that the aforesaid

order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice that one

months notice in writing before the termination of his services under

Section 5 sub section 2 of the Temporary Servant Rules ought to have

been given. Secondly, the said impugned order is challenged on the

ground that it is achieved by malafides and arbitrariness. It is alleged

that the petitioner has been victimized and order of termination has

been passed selectively. The petitioner has made some allegations of

malafides against Mr. Mohd. Faisal, Field Biologist in the same Project

who was impleaded as respondent no. 4. It is alleged in the petition

that the respondent no. 4 is a powerful person and very close to the

Project Director who physically assaulted and humiliated the

petitioner in the presence of other staff members and threatened the

petitioner with dire consequences. Lastly, impugned order is

challenged on the ground that the petitioner was offered appointment

as a Nature Education Officer by Deputy Registrar, University of Delhi

while as his services are sought to be terminated by Prof. C. R. Babu,

Project-in-Charge who himself is subordinate to the Deputy Registrar,

and therefore, not competent to issue the termination letter.

4. The respondents no. 1 and 2, namely, University of Delhi have

filed their counter affidavits and refuted the allegations of malafides.

The stand of the University of Delhi is that the aforesaid Project of

Yamuna Bio-diversity Park though it is the Project of Delhi

Development Authority but they were specifically entrusted it to Prof.

C. R. Babu vide letter dated 11th June, 2005 on account of his special

and personal expertise in the field. Prof. C. R. Babu at the time of

entrustment of the Project to him was Pro Vice Chancellor of

University of Delhi and as he was due to retire from service on 30th

June, 2005 and therefore the letter of appointment which was issued

on 27th June, 2005 to the petitioner was signed by Deputy Registrar,

University of Delhi as obviously Pro Vice Chancellor could not have

signed any letter of appointment though he was the Project Incharge.

The stand of the respondents No.1 and 2 is that at the time when the

impugned letter of termination of services of the petitioner was issued,

Sh. C.R. Babu was no more an employee of University of Delhi but was

admittedly Project Incharge and therefore he was competent to issue

the letter of termination of services of the petitioner on 16th August,

2007. It was also averred that since the services of the petitioner were

temporary in nature, therefore, the petitioner could not raise any

grievance in as much as termination was not casting any stigma on

the petitioner.

5. So far as the respondent no. 4 is concerned, it has chosen to file

a separate counter affidavit and refuted the averments that he is very

near to Prof. C. R. Babu, Project Incharge or that he was instrumented

in getting the impugned order passed. He has also denied the

allegations made by the petitioner in the petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner raised only one point with regard to the competence and the

validity of the termination order. The contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner was that as the petitioner was offered letter

of appointment to the post of Nature Education Officer vide letter

dated 27th June, 2005 by the Deputy Registrar, University of Delhi,

therefore for all practical purposes he was an employee of the

University of Delhi and the termination had to take place only by an

authorized person of the University of Delhi in accordance with law.

8. As against this both on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2

Ms. M. Acharya, learned counsel contended that as the letter of 11th

June, 2005 specifically made Prof. C. R. Babu as the Project Incharge

for the Bio-diversity Park Project which was a Project by the Delhi

Development Authority but he was competent to issue the termination

letter. The time when the offer of appointment was made, Prof. C. R.

Babu was posted as Pro Vice Chancellor, therefore, the letter of offer of

appointment was issued by the Deputy Registrar, University of Delhi.

Obviously, the Pro Vice Chancellor could not have issued the letter of

appointment and it was on his instructions and on behalf of Project

Incharge the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner. The

letter dated 11th June, 2005 issued by the Delhi Development

Authority makes it specifically clear that Prof. C. R. Babu on account

of his special expertise in the field in question was made as a Project

Director for the entire Project and this assignment was given to him by

the DDA especially in view of the fact that he was to superannuate

w.e.f. 30th June, 2005, and therefore, the Project Director was not only

competent but also fully empowered to dispense with the services of

the petitioner who admittedly was a temporary employee.

9. I have carefully considered the respective submissions. I feel

that the petitioner is taking a totally high technical objection only in

order to perpetuate his services in the Project where admittedly he is a

temporary employee.

10. This conclusion is drawn by the Court on the basis of the letter

dated 11th June, 2005 issued by Registrar & Finance Officer,

University of Delhi to the Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority

which especially acknowledges the fact that Yamuna Bio-diversity Park

and Aravalli Bio-diversity Park have been entrusted by the Delhi

Development Authority to Prof. C. R. Babu, Pro Vice Chancellor on

account of his personal expertise. It is in this letter, where it is

specifically mentioned that Prof. C. R. Babu is not only to operate,

pursue but to also settle all transactions financial and administrative

nature with regard to the above mentioned Projects. It may be

pertinent here to reproduce the content of the entire letter which reads

as under:

"Delhi University Logo Off. : 27667878 Fax : 27666023 Res.: 24106891 UNIVERSITY OF DELHI Delhi-110007

K. MANJIT SINGH, IA & AS M.A.(English) M.Sc. (Finance) REGISTRAR

No.R/2005/1915 June 11, 2005 The Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

The projects for establishment and management of (a) Yamuna Biodiversity Park and (b) Aravalli Biodiversity Park have been entrusted by the Delhi Development Authority to Prof. C. R. Babu, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi, Delhi. Professor Babu is due to retire from service on 30th June, 2005. However, since these projects were entrusted by DDA to Prof. Babu on account of his personal expertise in this field, the University of Delhi has made special provisions to enable smooth execution of financial as well as administrative issues of these projects. The University has also kept in view the fact that Prof. Babu will be intimately associated with the University has also kept in view the fact that Prof. Babu will be intimately associated with the University in his capacity as Professor Emeritus. It may kindly be noted that as Professor Emeritus he is very much a part of Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystem (CEMDE).

The University of Delhi has empowered Prof. C. R. Babu to operate, purse and settle all transactions of financial and administrative nature with regard to the above mentioned projects.

This is for your kind information and record.

Yours faithfully,

S/d (Kanwar Manjit Singh) Registrar & Finance Officer"

11. A perusal of this letter clearly shows that at the time when the

advertisement was floated a letter dated 27th June, 2005 giving offer of

appointment letter to the Nature Education Officer to the petitioner

Prof. C. R. Babu was functioning as Pro Vice Chancellor, University of

Delhi, and therefore, he could not have issued the letter of

appointment and it was issued on his behalf of the Deputy Registrar,

University of Delhi merely on account of the fact that offer of

appointment is issued on a letterhead of University of Delhi having the

logo of University does not mean that he has become the employee of

the University of Delhi but the fact of the matter is that he is an

employee of the Project. The letter of termination dated 16th August,

2007 though issued by Prof. C. R. Babu who by that time had

superannuated and in the capacity of Project Incharge had issued the

letter of termination on the letterhead of the Project though that also

had the logo of University of Delhi. The said termination letter is not

stigmatic in any manner whatsoever and since the petitioner was

recruited for the Project and worked for the Project of which Prof. C. R.

Babu was the Project Incharge on the strength of letter dated 11th

June, 2005 he was fully competent to have terminated the services of

the petitioner who was admittedly temporary. Therefore, I find no

infirmity in the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1st

September, 2007. The petitioner could not be said to be an employee

of the Delhi University and much less was the requirement to

terminate his services by the said University.

12. Since the petitioner was temporary, reliance can also be placed

on the following authorities to show that a temporary employee cannot

challenge the order of termination unless and until the order is

stigmatic for casting a stigma. In the instant case no stigma is being

cast on the petitioner. Reliance is placed in three authorities:

Parvanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr. 2002 (1) SCC 520

Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr. 1999 (2) SCC 21

Krishnadevaraya Education Trust & Anr. Vs. L.A. Balakrishna 2001 (9) SCC 319

13. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion

that there is an absolutely no merit in the petition, and accordingly,

the same is dismissed. The order stay dated 31st August, 2007 stands

vacated.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 25, 2009 KP