Mohinder Verma
JAMMU, Nov 12: In a judgment of far reaching consequences, the Division Bench of State High Court comprising Chief Justice M M Kumar and Justice Hasnain Masoodi has upheld the decision of Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Jammu (SKUAST-J) to terminate 296 contractual employees as they were engaged illegally and on pick and chose basis through backdoor by the then Vice-Chancellor in connivance with other functionaries of the varsity.
The Division Bench passed this significant order in the appeals filed by the contractual employees of the SKUAST-J challenging the judgment of Writ Court, which had dismissed all the writ petitions by holding that the University was justified in directing the cancellation of their engagements, besides the notice inviting offers by SKUAST-J from reputed contractors/agencies for supply of labourers to work against the positions that became available because of disengagement of the appellants.
The appellants submitted that they were appointed by the University on contractual basis to work in different capacities and after serving the University for quite sometime, they were disengaged when the allegations of their backdoor appointment surfaced against the University authorities for making the engagements.
They questioned the disengagement orders in various petitions on the ground that the same were made at their back without affording them an opportunity to explain their stand and were in violation of principle of natural justice.
However, Advocate W S Nargal appearing for the Varsity opposed the appeals on the ground that the engagements/ appointments were made de-hors the rules and without affording an opportunity to all eligible candidates to compete for the posts/positions against which they were engaged. The University took a stand that a criminal case has already been registered against the delinquent officers namely Dr Nagendra Sharma, the then Vice-Chancellor of the University, Iqbal Singh, the then Estates Officer of the Varsity and V K Soi, the then Financial Controller of the University, who were responsible for making engagements, by the State Vigilance Organization and challan has been produced.
It was further pleaded by the counsel for the University that the Varsity has taken a policy decision to outsource different works assigned to contractual employees and had already issued tender notice inviting offers from the contractors/agencies engaged in the supply of labourers.
Advocate Nargal further pleaded that an audit party headed by Director General, Audit and Inspection, on audit of the affairs of the University highlighted the irregularities committed in engagement of the contractual employees and the University as a matter of policy decided to stop the payment to the contractual employees till the screening committee submitted its report.
After going through the memoranda of appeals as also the Writ Court record and hearing the counsels for the parties at length, the Division Bench observed, “the employment under the State is in the nature of public largesse and cannot be distributed selectively at whim and caprice of the appointing authority”, adding “such employment irrespective of mode and manner adopted, if made without giving a fair opportunity would not only run contrary to the recruitment rules but also offend right to equality, equal protection of laws and equality of opportunity in the matters relating to employment generated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”.
“The University authorities while making the contractual appointments were motivated by self-interest to such an extent that they omitted to adhere to the basic features of the contractual appointment. The contractual appointment, it needs no emphasis, is in time-frame and once the contract period comes to an end, the positions become vacant and are to be re-advertised”, the DB said, adding “the University authorities surprisingly didn’t fix any term of contract while making the engagements. They blinded by their urge to confer undue benefits on the appellants failed to notice that the posts against which contractual appointments made were not sanctioned and didn’t exist in the University”.
“The appellants in the circumstances are beneficiaries of fraud and deceit on the part of the University authorities disentitling the appellants from a claim to protection of their contractual appointments or to notice prior to cancellation of their appointments”, the DB said, adding “the beneficiary of fraud and deceit cannot claim a right to perpetuate or justify the benefit illegally extended to him”.
With these observations, the DB dismissed all the appeals and said, “the University, however, would do well to persuade contractors/agencies to whom the work discharged by the appellants has been outsourced to consider engaging the appellants for performance of the outsourced works”, adding “the contractors/agencies are expected not to be reluctant to engage the appellants having regard to the experience they are expected to have acquired while working as contractual employees with the University”.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Writ Court had dismissed the petitions by holding that the University was justified in directing the cancellation of their engagements as all of them were engaged de-hors the rules and without providing opportunity to eligible persons to participate in the process.
The appeals against the Writ Court judgment were filed through Senior Advocate S S Lehar along with Advocate Meharban Singh, Senior Advocate M A Goni along with Advocate A H Bhat and Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi along with Advocates Sumit Singh and Ajay Sharma.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel