S C SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. on 5 December 2018

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal in the present case arises from the judgment of aDivision Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 28 December2011[1]. The High Court quashed a Resolution dated 29 July 2006, beingResolution No. 23 of the 76[th] General Meeting of the Executive Councilof the Second Respondent[2]. By that resolution, the College DevelopmentCouncil[3] was terminated with immediate effect. The Appellant, whowas a Director of the CDC, has filed the present appeal, aggrieved bythe direction of the High Court that while the CDC will continue, it willbe without the Appellant as its Director.

3. On the request of the Second Respondent, the University GrantsCommission[4] agreed to set up a CDC if an assurance was communicatedby the Government of Uttar Pradesh that it would bear the financialliability after 31 March 1995. By a letter dated 31 October 1991, theGovernment of Uttar Pradesh agreed to bear all the expenses incurredon the post of Director, CDC after 31 March 1995. By a letter dated 07November 1991, the UGC agreed to the request of the University to setup a CDC with two posts – (i) A Director in the Professor’s scale; and(ii) A stenographer. An advertisement inviting applications for the aboveposts was issued on 06 January 1992. The Appellant was appointed asDirector, CDC through open selection by an office order dated 02November 1992 of the Second Respondent. On 23 January 1996, theAppellant was permanently absorbed.

4. In 2003, the University shifted the office of the CDC fromSrinagar to Dehradun. The Appellant filed a writ petition[5] before theHigh Court of Uttarakhand challenging the order of transfer. On 09December 2005, the University transferred the Appellant to the SwamiRamtirth Campus, New Tehri. On 30 June 2006, disciplinary proceedingswere initiated against the Appellant and he was suspended. The order ofsuspension was stayed on an interim application in the above writ petition, 1In Writ Petition No 429 of 2006

2Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar 3CDC

4UGC

5Writ Petition (SB) No 7 of 2006

BC

DE

F

G

H

Aon 10 July 2006. On 19 July 2006, the High Court of Uttarakhand disposedof the writ petition by revoking the suspension, subject to the Appellantjoining service at Srinagar. However, the disciplinary proceedings werenot stayed.

5. At the 76[th] General Meeting of its Executive Council, theBUniversity passed a resolution to abolish the post of CDC on the groundthat the permission of the government for bearing the financial burdenof the CDC was not received and it was not legally created. Challengingthis resolution, the Appellant filed a writ petition[6] before the High Courtof Uttarakhand, from which the present appeal arises. The High Courtrelied on the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of CollegeCDevelopment Council in Universities’ issued by the UGC for theestablishment of the CDC. Clause 3 of the revised guidelines deals withtenure of the Director, thus:

“He may be appointed on a tenure basis for three years, extendablefor another terms of three years, but not beyond the age of 65Dyears, when he would retire.”

The High Court observed that the Government of Uttar Pradeshagreed to bear the expenses to be incurred in respect of the post ofDirector, CDC. However, the University did not obtain reimbursementfrom the State Government for the expenses incurred. Ruling that theEUniversity could not hold out that there was no assurance by the StateGovernment to take over the liability of the CDC after 31 March 1995,the High Court quashed Resolution No. 23 of the 76[th] General Meetingof the Executive Council by which the post of the CDC was sought tobe abolished. This ruling of the High Court is not challenged. On theFquestion whether the Appellant should be allowed to continue as Director,CDC, the High Court observed that he was admittedly appointed underthe scheme envisaged by the revised guidelines issued by the UGC andcould only work for two tenures of three years. Noting that the Appellanthad already served two terms of three years, the High Court held thatthe CDC will continue, but without the Appellant as its Director. It is thisGdirection of the High Court, refusing the Appellant’s continuation asDirector, CDC that forms the basis of the present appeal. The HighCourt directed that the University to complete the adjustment of theAppellant as mentioned in Resolution No. 23 of the 76[th] General Meeting S C SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of the Executive Council. The High Court held that the submission thatthe term limit in the revised guidelines applies only to deputationists hasno merit since the deputationists are also people associated with highereducation and at the relevant time when the revised guidelines wereissued, the retirement age of persons associated with higher educationwould be much less than 65 years.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellantsubmitted that the office order dated 02 November 1992 by which theAppellant was appointed as Director, CDC did not mention that he isbeing appointed on deputation or on a tenure basis. The main contentionput forth for the Appellant is that applying the principle of ejusdemgeneris, the tenure limitation of two terms of three years in Clause 3 ofthe revised guidelines can only apply to those Directors appointed on adeputation basis. It was further contended that once the Appellant wasabsorbed, the tenure limitation which applied only to deputationists, didnot apply to him.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent University submittedon the other hand that the Appellant was put to notice that his appointmentwas for a tenure of three years and that the tenure limitation of twoterms of three years applied to the post of Director, CDC and barred theAppellant from continuing in the post after having served two terms.

9. The terms of the advertisement issued on 06 January 1992 bythe University calling for applications for the posts in the newly constitutedCDC are material. The relevant portion reads thus:

“Minimum qualification for Director are same as those for thepost of a Professor as prescribed by the University. Preferencewill be given to the candidate who has dealt with academicadministration. The tenure of the Director, CollegeDevelopment Council will be for 3 years.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for aperiod of three years. Though the office order dated 02 November 1992by which the Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC does not mentiona tenure, it cannot be said that the Appellant was not put to notice thathis appointment to the post of Director, CDC was for a period of threeyears. The appointment was in terms of the advertisement.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A10. Clause 3 of the revised guidelines reads thus:

“3. The Coordinator/Director/Dean of the College DevelopmentCouncil may be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendationof the Selection Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, asChairman, a nominee of the UGC, and a nominee of the SyndicateBof the University. He may be appointed in the scale of Rs. 1500-2500 plus other admissible allowances as per university rules.Persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation andother permissible allowances. He may be appointed on atenure basis for three years, extendable for another term of threeyears, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire.”

C

(Emphasis supplied)

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that thesentence that provides for a tenure follows the sentence that states that“persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation and other permissibleDallowances” and hence, the tenure limitation applies only to thoseappointed as deputationists. It is submitted that the word “he” appearingat the beginning of the sentence and after the sentence permitting theappointment of deputationists must be read together.

12. There is no merit in this contention. The clause deals with theEappointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. When theclause is read as a whole, the word “he” is used to indicate the pay scaleand the tenure of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Thesentence on deputationists is merely to provide that those persons ondeputation will be eligible for deputation allowance and other permissibleallowances. The clause read as a whole, deals with the conditions forFthe appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Hence,it cannot be held that merely because the sentence providing for a tenurelimitation follows the sentence on deputationists, the tenure limitationapplies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to every personwho is appointed to the post.

G

13. The Appellant, who was appointed on 02 November 1992,has admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms ofthree years each. We are in agreement with the High Court that havingserved the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the Appellantcannot continue as Director, CDC.

H

S C SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

14. For these reasons, we see no reason to interfere with thejudgment of the High Court. The appeal shall stand dismissed. In viewof the appeal being dismissed, the contempt petition does not survive.There shall be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H