# Ranjit Singh and others v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 323
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-04
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 1022 of 2011
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Zaki Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjit-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-42497
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India
Art.226-
Disengagement contractual appointment
as teacher for MBA course-continued for
last
Seven
years-no
allegation
of
misconduct or inefficiency-no Service
Rules or Regulation governing service
condition-existing
university
being
within meaning of instrumenty of state-
can not be allow to adopt hiring and
firing policy-petitioner entitled to work
till continuation of course or schemehonorarium
be
paid
subject
to
satisfactory discharge of duty.

Held: Para-10

In academic matters where teachers are
engaged by the University may be on
contractual basis under the scheme or
course which is likely to continue for
years
to
come,
ordinarily
such
engagement should not be terminated in
case the conduct and work of the person
engaged is satisfactory. It is not a case
where
work
and
conduct
of
the
petitioners are not satisfactory rather it
appears that petitioners have discharged
their
obligation
with
bright
service
record.

Case Law discussed:
(1985)4 SCC 43; Civil Appeal Nos. 419-426 of
2004; AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1971 SC 530; AIR
1985 SC 218; AIR 1980 SC 1707; (1992) 4
SCC 363; (1993) 2 SCC 386; (2004) 2 SCC
362; AIR 2005 SC 3315; AIR 2005 SC 2499;
(2005) 7 SCC 234.

## Text

1 All] Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
323
same to the claimant within a month
thereafter.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAKI ULLAH KHAN, J.

Service Bench No. 1022 of 2011

Ranjit Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.G.S.Parihar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C
Sri W.U.Ahmad

Constitution
of
India
Art.226-
Disengagement contractual appointment
as teacher for MBA course-continued for
last
Seven
years-no
allegation
of
misconduct or inefficiency-no Service
Rules or Regulation governing service
condition-existing
university
being
within meaning of instrumenty of state-
can not be allow to adopt hiring and
firing policy-petitioner entitled to work
till continuation of course or schemehonorarium
be
paid
subject
to
satisfactory discharge of duty.

Held: Para-10

In academic matters where teachers are
engaged by the University may be on
contractual basis under the scheme or
course which is likely to continue for
years
to
come,
ordinarily
such
engagement should not be terminated in
case the conduct and work of the person
engaged is satisfactory. It is not a case
where
work
and
conduct
of
the
petitioners are not satisfactory rather it
appears that petitioners have discharged
their
obligation
with
bright
service
record.

Case Law discussed:
(1985)4 SCC 43; Civil Appeal Nos. 419-426 of
2004; AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1971 SC 530; AIR
1985 SC 218; AIR 1980 SC 1707; (1992) 4
SCC 363; (1993) 2 SCC 386; (2004) 2 SCC
362; AIR 2005 SC 3315; AIR 2005 SC 2499;
(2005) 7 SCC 234.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Shri H.G.S.Parihar, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
Shri
W.U.Ahmad as well as learned Standing
counsel. Perused the records.

2. Instant petition has been preferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner on account of
hiring and firing policy adopted by the
respondent University to engage teachers
for MBA course under self-financing
scheme under the grant of contractual
assignment. Admittedly, the petitioners
were appointed in the year 2003 and 2006
on contractual basis for the period of
eleven month to impart education to the
students of the respondent University
(Institute of Business Studies) on fixed
salary. They have been continuing in
service from the very inception of
Establishment though it was for eleven
month. However, respondent took a
decision to dispense with the services of
petitioners and make a fresh recruitment
for
the
respective
courses.
Feeling
aggrieved with the decision taken by the
respondent University, the petitioners had
approached this court.

3. Shri W.U.Ahmad learned counsel
for the respondent, while defending the
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
action of the respondent University
submits that no right accrues to the
appointees who were appointed on
contract basis. He further submits that
under self-financing course teachers are
engaged keeping in view the strength of
the student.

4. It is admitted fact between the
parties that petitioners have been engaged
by the University in the year 2003 and
2006 respectively. They have been
continuing in service. No material has
been brought on record by the respondent
University with regard to any misconduct
or inefficiency of petitioner in discharging
their obligation. Petitioners have been
discharging duty since several years in
respondents
University
under
selffinancing scheme. What prompted the
respondents to disengage the petitioners is
not borne out from the record. However,
Shri W.U.Ahmad asserted that respondent
University has got right to choose
teachers since the nature of job is
contractual. It is not disputed that there is
no Service Rules or Regulation governing
the service condition but fact remains that
respondent University is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. It has got no right to act
arbitrarily or in an unfair manner.
University has got right to engage
teachers itself under self- financing course
by its choice but teachers working in the
University since several years without any
complaint, ordinarily their services may
be renewed. How the University may be
permitted to engage new teachers every
year for Scheme? When respective course
was started in the institutions of the
University and constitues then reason for
fresh recruitment is not borne out from
the records. It is always expected that the
University shall act in a just and fair
manner and not abuse their power in the
matter
of
engagement
and
appointment when right to livelihood is
fundamental right protected by Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

5. Long back in the case of Rattan
Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana
and others reported in (1985) 4 SCC 43,
Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the
hiring and firing policy in the colleges
and University. In a recent judgement
decided by Hon'ble Supreme court by
judgement and order dated 20.2.2013
in Civil Appeal Nos. 419-426 of 2004,
Balmer Lawrie and company ltd. and
others Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy and
others, similar plea was raised. It was
stated that the appellant before the Apex
Court was the employee of subsidiary
company
and
not
the
Indo-Burma
Petroleum Co. Ltd. Accordingly, apart
from a plea that the appellant before
Hon'ble Supreme Court was not State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India the other plea was
raised that being contractual appointment
it was not open for the appellant to raise
grievances on account of termination of
services.

6. Their Lordship held that the
subsidiary company falling under the
deep and pervasive control of the
appellant shall not be different entity and
shall be State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It
is further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
that rules governing the employment
conferring power with regard to hiring
and firing is not justifiable and cannot be
enforced. After discussing catena of
judgements Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled
that any rule, regulation or circular
issued/framed in contravention of the
1 All] Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
325
constitutional
mandate
cannot
be
enforced.
Power
conferring
on
the
authority to engage new incumbent at the
specified interval is not sustainable.
Accordingly, Hon'ble Supreme Court
allowed the appeal and directed to pay
salary to the extent of 60 per cent
admissible under Rule. Relevant portion
from the judgement of Balmer Lawrie
(supra)
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
is
reproduced as under:-

"Undoubtedly, the High Court has
not dealt with the issue on merits with
respect to the termination of the services
of the respondents herein. However,
considering the fact that such termination
took place several decades ago, and
litigation in respect of the same remained
pending not only before the High Court,
but also before this Court, it is desirable
that
the
dispute
come
to
quietus.
Therefore, we have dealt with the case on
merits. In keeping with this, we cannot
approved the "hire and fire" policy
adopted by the appellant company, and
the terms and conditions incorporated in
the Manual of Officers in 1976, cannot be
held to be justifiable, and the same being
arbitrary, cannot be enforced."

7. In the present case, argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the
University that Institute of Business is a
separate entity seems to be misconceived
argument. It is admitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent University that
Institute of Business Management is a
part and parcel of University and certain
autonomy has been given to it. It is the
University which makes appointment on
the contractual basis. Accordingly, it
cannot be said that respondent no. 4 is not
a State within a meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. It is well settled
proposition of law that State or its
authorities, in the present case university
(authorities), are supposed to discharge
their obligation in a just and fair manner.
Any unfair activity on their part shall be
hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of
India vide AIR 1978 SC 597, Smt.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and
another. More so when it is well settled
proposition of law that right of life and
livelihood are the fundamental right
protected by Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has relied upon a case reported
in (1992) 4 SCC 33, Director, Institute of
Management Development, U.P. Vs.
Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) where right of
continuance
in
service
opposed
on
account of contractual/adhoc appointment
which was done for the period of six
months. Case is entirely seems to be
passed
on
different
facts
and
circumstances. In the present case,
petitioners have been continuing in
service since last several years though the
original engagement is for eleven months
and courses still continue.

9. In the case of Pushpa Srivastava
(supra) appointment was for six months
and the scheme in which the incumbent
was appointed seems came to an end.
Accordingly, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that after end of contractual assignment
no right accrue to the incumbent. It is well
settled proposition of law that judgment
should be read in reference to context
vide H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav
Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur &
others. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1971
SC 530; M/s. Amar Nath Om Parkash
& others. Vs. State of Punjab & others
AIR 1985 SC 218; Rajpur Ruda Meha
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
& others Vs. State of Gurajat, AIR
1980
SC
1707;
C.I.T.
Vs.
Sun
Engineering Works (P) Ltd., (1992) 4
SCC
363;
Sarv
Shramik
Sangh,
Bombay Vs. Indian Hume Pipe Co.
Ltd. & Anr., (1993) 2 SCC 386;
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr.
Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr.,
AIR 2002 SC 834; Mehboob Dawod
Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra, (2004)
2 SCC 362; ICICI Bank & Anr. Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay & others: AIR 2005 SC 3315;
M/s. Makhija Construction and Enggr.
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indore Development
Authority & others: AIR 2005 SC 2499;
and Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. Vs.
Aksh Optifibre Ltd. & Anr.: (2005) 7
SCC 234. The case of Pushpa Srivastava
(supra) seems to be on different facts and
circumstances.

10. In academic matters where
teachers are engaged by the University
may be on contractual basis under the
scheme or course which is likely to
continue for years to come, ordinarily
such
engagement
should
not
be
terminated in case the conduct and work
of the person engaged is satisfactory. It is
not a case where work and conduct of the
petitioners are not satisfactory rather it
appears that petitioners have discharged
their obligation with bright service record.

11. In view of above, we allow the
writ petition. A writ in the nature of
mandamus
is
issued
directing
the
respondents to continue the petitioner in
service for academic session 2013 and
2014 and pay him honorarium/salary as
the case may be in accordance to Rules.
Petitioners shall be permitted to continue
in service till continuance of course or the
scheme, as the case may be and be paid
honorarium
subject
to
satisfactory
discharge of duties.

12. Writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

13. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAKI ULLAH KHAN, J.

Service Bench No. 1035 of 2011

Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Savita Jain
I.P.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India,Art.-226-Payment
of salary-post of physics, chemistry and
mathematic-sanctioned on 01.07.1999
permanent sanction w.e.f. 08.08.1996
granted payment of salary denied in
view
of
G.O.
21.08.2000-by
which
Government prohibited to sanction new
post-held-any
G.O.
Has
prospective
force-once recognition granted-as aided
institution-claim for salary can not be
denied-order
impugned
quashed
-
necessary directions issued.

Held: Para-8

In view of the settled proposition of law
the Director of Higher Education seems
to be not justified in rejecting the
payment of the salary. The impugned
order at the face of record, seems to be