Ashok Kumar v. The Director, Banarsidas Chandiwala Institute of Professional Studies & Anr.

1. This appeal has been filed, challenging the Order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 9434/2016, titled Ashok Kumar v. The Director, Banarasidas Chandiwala Institute of Professional Studies & Anr., dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, however, reserving the liberty to the appellant to assail his termination before appropriate Court/forum.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

2. The appellant had filed the above writ petition alleging therein that he had been appointed as the Personal Assistant to the respondent No. 1, the Director, Banarasidas Chandiwala Institute of Professional Studies, vide letter dated 07.12.2010. The said appointment letter stated that the appellant shall be on probation for a period of one year which could be extended further, and his services could be terminated at any time during the period of probation.

3. The appellant states that vide the letter dated 23.11.2011, issued by the respondent No. 1, the services of the appellant were confirmed to the said post. The appellant, however, was unceremoniously terminated from service vide order dated 05.11.2015 passed by respondent No. 2, Admin Cum Account Officer.

4. The appellant approached this Court by way of the above writ petition challenging the termination letter.

5. The learned Single Judge, however, while holding that the writ petition was maintainable, further observed that as the respondents have alleged that the letter dated 23.11.2011, allegedly confirming the appellant in service is a forged document, the said question cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition, while reserving the liberty to the appellant to challenge his termination before an appropriate Court/forum.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition simply on the averment of the respondent stating that the letter dated 23.11.2011 is a forged document. He submits that on the face of it, the document is genuine, and the plea to the contrary had been taken falsely by the respondent to non-suit the appellant.

7. He further submits that in terms of the “ Statute 32: Manner of Appointment, Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees Appointed by the University ” issued by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in exercising of powers under subsection (2) of section 26 of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Act, 1998, the period of a non-teaching employee who is appointed on probation, is 12 months, which may be extended for a further period not exceeding 12 months, whereafter the employee would stand confirmed to the post. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the above Statute which results in deeming confirmation of the appellant to the post.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the document dated 23.11.2011 is clearly forged. He submits that the original of the same has not seen the light of the day. He further submits that there are various indicators which show that the document is a forged document. To name a few, he submits that the letter number is typed in the impugned letter dated 23.11.2011, while it is generally handwritten in all correspondence of the institute. He further submits that even the signatures of the alleged author i.e. respondent No. 1 are not matching.

9. As far as the Statute is concerned, he submits that the same applies only to the employees of the University and not to the employees of the Institute.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the appellant had filed the above writ petition after having accepted his termination order and the cheque for one month salary, which was accompanying the termination order. The same stands encashed by the appellant.

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

12. Though we have doubt on the very maintainability of the writ petition, we have proceeded to consider the claim of the appellant on merits as well.

13. As is noted hereinabove, the appellant had approached this Court through the writ petition by relying upon his confirmation letter dated 23.11.2011. The same is alleged by the respondent to be a forged document. Some of the indicators to show such forgery have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. We need not, in exercise of our appellate powers, proceed to examine the same. Suffice it to say, that the learned Single Judge has stated that such disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being a summary jurisdiction. We have no reason to disagree with the above.

14. As far as the reliance of the appellant on the Statute is concerned, the same applies to the non-teaching employees “appointed by the University”. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant is by the Institute and it is not been shown by the appellant that the appellant was in fact appointed by the University. The application of the Statute to the appellant is, therefore, not made out.