How to get certified copy of judjement by post

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011

Date of Decision.16.02.2012

Dr. Jagdish Rami son of Shri Prithvi Raj .....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others .....Respondents

Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate

for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment ? No

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

-.-

K. KANNAN J.

1. By a cryptic order dated 11.05.2011, the Central University of

Punjab, which had issued to the petitioner a letter of appointment

informed that his joining report was not accepted by the competent

authority. It is this order issued on 11.05.2011 that is in challenge.

2. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the

Centre for Bio-Sciences and he had been issued with letter of

appointment by the University by its letter dated 26.04.2011. He was

required to submit his joining report in the office on or before

11.05.2011 and according to the petitioner, when at the time of joining

on 09.05.2011, he was required to hand over at the office all original

certificates and when he demanded a receipt for the handing over of the

originals from the staff member of the University, who was receiving his

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -2-

papers, the staff by name Poonam Rani issued an informal receipt on the

photocopy of the joining report without even a stamp of the competent

authority. The petitioner would state that he was medically examined

at the same date at the Health Centre and he had actually joined the

University and gave a lecture on 10.05.2011 to the students of M.Phil

Course. He again met with the Assistant Registrar, who is arrayed as the

3rd respondent to issue a due receipt for the original certificates on

10.05.2011. But on the next day namely on 11.05.2011, the petitioner

was rebuked by the 3rd respondent for seeking a receipt of the original

certificates but he returned the original certificates to the petitioner

and on the same day, he was also given the impugned letter.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ

of certiorari for quashing of letter and to issue a mandamus directing

the respondents not to fill up the post of the petitioner till the

completion of the dispute. The petitioner's case is contested by the

University on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed several

important facts and there is no scope for mandamus to be issued in a

situation where the petitioner had merely a temporary post initially for

a period of one year and that during the period, the contract could be

terminated at any time without prior notice and without assigning any

reason. Under the terms of the employment issued to the petitioner at

the time of making the offer on 26.04.2011, it was specifically stated

that the appointment could not establish any right or claim for

regularization/absorption against any vacant post in the University. The

petitioner would try to explain the circumstances when the letter of

rejection of the joining report was made by making a disclosure of

certain events that had taken place at the time when he reported for

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -3-

joining the duty. At the time when he handed over the certificates, the

petitioner allegedly misbehaved with the dealing official Ms. Poonam

Rani as well as with the Special Officer, Professor R.K. Deora, who was

entrusted with the task of making a quick assessment of fracas at the

time when the petitioner reported for joining. According to

respondents, Ms. Poonam Rani issued a receipt to the petitioner for the

certificates submitted by him, whereupon the petitioner insisted for a

receipt to be signed and stamped by permanent employee since Poonam

Rani herself was a contractual employee and therefore, the receipt

issued by her was worthless. At that time she was reported to have

informed that there was no permanent clerk for receiving certificates

and she alone was authorized to issue such a receipt. The petitioner

started to shout and used intemperate language. All this happened in

the immediate vicinity of the Assistant Registrar-3rd respondent and

Poonam Rani immediately submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on

the same day. He had forwarded the same to the Special Officer of the

Central University, Professor R.K. Deora. The petitioner was reported to

have shown his temper even before the Special Officer, who had

reported to the Vice Chancellor through an office note informing that

the petitioner had asked for the entire file to be placed before the Vice

Chancellor directly as the contractual staff was nothing to do with his

joining report. Even at the time of receiving the certificates back, he

struck off the signature found in the receipt by Ms. Poonam Rani. It was

after this office note that the impugned letter had been issued.

4. The relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be given in

favour of the petitioner without actually identifying the nature of

employment that the petitioner had. An offer of employment to the

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -4-

petitioner becomes the contrct at the moment the offeree accepts the

employment and shows up at the University to give his joining report. I

have no doubt in my mind that there was a contract on the day when he

came and signed the joining report. There was nothing like acceptance

of a joining report. The joining report itself is the acceptance of offer

of employment by the University. However, if the impugned letter had

led to the next stage of treating the post as vacant and the respondent-

University had taken the next step of issuing a fresh advertisement for

the same post and the petitioner also treats the impugned letter as a

letter of termination of service, the matter that has to be seen only is

whether such a termination was possible. Even a probationer or a

contractual employee cannot be shown the door unless there was a valid

justification. A mere clause of contract that the service is terminable at

the will of employer without assigning any reason will not allow for an

arbitrary decision in the constitutional scheme of things that requires

every instrumentality of State that would include University to act fairly

to stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case, there

has been an attempt to assess the petitioner's conduct at the time of

joining that he showed an intemperate language against the staff. It

was not, therefore, a situation where there was a knee-jerk reaction on

the part of University to prevent the petitioner from joining the duty in

spite of offer of appointment. If a responsible officer of the University

namely an Assistant Registrar had been himself a witness to the incident

of rude behaviour by the petitioner against the staff and when the

matter was put before a senior Professor, who tried to elicit the facts

and who had also given a note to the Vice Chancellor pointing out to the

unruly conduct of the petitioner, it was surely within the realm of the

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -5-

University to constitute a fact finding committee to consider the

complaint given by Ms. Poonam Rani. It is brought through the record of

the respondents as Annexure R2/5 that Dr. P. Ramrao and Dr. R.G. Saini,

who were respectively the Dean, School of Basic and Applied Sciences

and Coordinator Centre of Biosciences had been constituted a

Committee to elicit the facts and the Committee has also given a report

testifying the truth of the complaint given by Ms. Poonam Rani. It is not

possible for me to sit in judgment over the report of the Committee, for

the writ petition is not even to challenge the committee report. As a

matter of fact, the petitioner could not have known any of the details of

report, which was intra-organizational report where the petitioner had

not been given any opportunity to participate.

5. As of now, I find that there is no order of termination. I have

already observed that after an offer of appointment is given and when

an employee reports at the office and accepts the employment and

gives a report of his joining, the contract becomes complete and it is

not possible to again serve a letter showing that the joining report is not

accepted. Acceptance of a joint report is a formal recognition of the

employer registering in the official records the time of joining. The

petitioner ought to have known that he was just then entering the

University and he ought to have taken his high learning to sit lightly on

his shoulders and not thrown his airs around to use it against a computer

operator receiving certificates at the reception. If he had allowed his

temper to flow on the first day, he could not have expected that he

would be welcomed by the University with a bouquet of flowers. The

documents filed in Court do not even show recommendation of

Committee to the Vice Chancellor not to accept the joining report but

C.W.P. No.9652 of 2011 -6-

the impugned letter has been signed by the Assistant Registrar that the

competent authority was not accepting the joining report. No purpose

will be served by quashing the letter rejecting the joining report. I have

not been shown any particular requirement by any of the Rules that

there must be an acceptance of a joining report. As I have already

observed that it is merely a record of what happens at the time of a

person joining. Only a greater pragmitism must prevail and both parties

must relent from their respective tough stand. The high credentials of a

young scientist, who got his Directorate from reputed University from

USA ought not to be trashed for a petty squable at the reception

counter. I would direct the matter to be placed before the Vice

Chancellor of the University for an appropriate consideration and if the

petitioner is prepared to mend his ways and give his assurance about

good conduct, the respondent-University should take a pragmistic

decision and allow the petitioner to continue. It shall be left to the

parties to bargain how they will treat this entire period from the time

he was issued with the impugned letter till the final decision is taken by

the respondent when the matter is placed before the Vice Chancellor for

reconsideration of the decision.

6. The writ petition is therefore disposed of and the matter be

placed before the Vice Chanellor of the University for appropriate

decision within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

(K. KANNAN)

JUDGE

February 16, 2012

Pankaj*

Please guide him with proper answer for future guidance, instead of spoon feeding with Judgment alosne

Thaheer

Is there any way to get copy by post, certtified from the court. I need it by post because chandigarh is tooo far for me now, i need cerified copy by court because it will required for another case at bathinda.

thanking you

jagdish

Is there any way to get copy by post, certtified from the court. I need it by post because chandigarh is tooo far for me now, i need cerified copy by court because it will required for another case at bathinda

thanking you

jagdish

Respectd Dr Sab,Have you got satisafctory answer of your query.If yes ,kindly share it me.Becoz i am also same side...pls

Thanks,