Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010251232024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/160/2025 TEZPUR UNIVERSITY AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, NAPAAM, TEZPUR, ASSAM-784028. 2: THE VICE-CHANCELLOR TEZPUR UNIVERSITY NAAPAM TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784028 3: THE REGISTRAR TEZPUR UNIVERSITY NAAPAM TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78402 VERSUS UPASANA DAS AND ANR DAUGHTER OF LATE HIMANGSHU KUMAR DAS, HOUSE NO.102, KHARGHULI, NEAR UPAYAN SHANTI, P.O-KHARGHULI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), PIN-781004. 2:SRI SAMARESH BARMAN S/O. SANTOSH KR. BARMAN R/O.- QUARTER NO. C-21(ASSAM TYPE) TEZPUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS NAPAAM DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784028 Page No.# 2/8 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate. - BEFORE - HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 26.05.2025. (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. This writ appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2561/2016 and WP(C) No.4770/2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the private respondent herein applied for the post of Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.) pursuant to the advertisement No.01/2012, dated 05.01.2012, issued by the Registrar, Tezpur University (appellant No.3 herein). The private respondent No.1being successful in the selection was appointed as P.R.I.O at Tezpur University. Her initial appointment was on ad-hoc basis for a period of 2 years against a permanent post and the said period was treated as period spent on probation. The period of probation was extended up to 22.03.2014. However, in the meantime, the service of the private respondent was terminated on 13.12.2013 by the Tezpur University. The private respondent assailed the said termination order by filing Page No.# 3/8 WP(C) No.7526/2013. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Tezpur University withdrew the said termination order dated 13.12.2013 and taking into consideration the same, this Court closed the above-referred writ petition vide order dated 20.03.2014. 3. On one hand, the Tezpur University withdrew the termination order dated 13.12.2013 of the private respondent vide order dated 12.03.2014, however, on the other hand, they passed a fresh order on 21.03.2014 and released the petitioner from the services of the Tezpur University i.e. from 22.03.2014 on the ground that the term of her ad-hoc appointment for 2 years was completed. Being aggrieved with the same, the private respondent preferred WP(C) No.1734/2014 and a Single Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 02.06.2015, wherein, the termination order dated 21.03.2014 was interfered and the same was set aside. 4. It is to be noticed that the Tezpur University did not challenge the said order dated 02.06.2015 passed in WP(C) No.1734/2014. But the authority of the Tezpur University did not permit the private respondent to resume her services and went on to issue fresh advertisement No.04/2016, dated 23.03.2016, inviting applications for filling up the post of Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.) in the Tezpur University. 5. Being aggrieved with the same, the private respondent filed another writ petition, being, WP(C) No.2561/2016 challenging the said process. In the meantime, the Tezpur University (respondent therein) has appointed the respondent no.4 of the writ petition as Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.) in the Tezpur University, in pursuant to the advertisement No.04/2016. 6. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the Page No.# 4/8 learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and issued certain directions. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- “10. It is to be noted that the petitioner was appointed as Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.) against a permanent vacant post after a due process of selection. Although the initial appointment of the petitioner was stated to be on adhoc basis, however, the same was further clarified with the stipulation that the initial period of 2 years would be treated as to be on probation. 11. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner was being extended from time to time upon assessment of the services rendered by her and the assessment so made, the authorities of the Tezpur University had extended the probation period till 23.12.2014. However, ignoring the said position, holding the action of the petitioner in making some posts in a social networking site i.e. Facebook, as unbecoming of a responsible officer holding the post of Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.) of the University and to be detrimental to the interest of the University, she came to be terminated from her services. The said order, dated 13.12.2013, also makes a mention that her performance was assessed and her performance was found to be unsatisfactory. 12. The termination order, dated 13.12.2013, was clearly stigmatic in nature. However, on proceedings instituted by the petitioner before this Court, the authorities had proceed to withdraw the same vide communication, dated 12.03.2014. 13. A perusal of the order, dated 21.03.2014, shows that the same only stipulates that the term of adhoc appointment of the petitioner having expired after a period of 2 years, she stood released from her services as Public Relation and Information Officer(P.R.I.O.) of the Tezpur University w.e.f. 22.03.2014. As noted hereinabove; the initial appointment of the petitioner was not on adhoc basis but was against a regular post made in pursuance of a process of selection but it was denoted as a adhoc appointment. However, it was also mentioned that the said period of 2 years would be treated to be period spent on probation. Given the manner in which the petitioner was appointed, it reveals that the appointment of the petitioner was a substantive appointment. 14. This Court vide order, dated 02.06.2015, having already held that the order, dated 21.03.2014, not having been passed basing on any fresh material that is to say that there was no further assessment of the services of the petitioner after the assessment that was made while extending her services till 22.03.2014; the release of the petitioner from her services, is to be construed to be one so effected basing on the misconduct as alleged against the petitioner in the earlier order, dated 13.12.2013. 15. No opportunity of hearing having been afforded to the petitioner prior to her release from the services which was already held by this Court to be solely based on a misconduct alleged against the petitioner; the order, dated 21.03.2014, was interfered with. The plea that has been brought on record by the authorities of the respondent University is that this Court after interfering with the release order, dated 21.03.2021, having not directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in her services, no Page No.# 5/8 reinstatement order was so issued by the respondent University. 16. Such a view of the matter is clearly erroneous in-as-much as the petitioner was continuing in her services on probation after being so appointed in pursuance to an advertisement and after a due process of selection and the period of her services having been so extended by the respondent University by holding the same to be a period of probation, the order of release of the petitioner from her services, dated 21.03.2014, having been interfered with by this Court, no order of reinstatement was called for in the matter in-as-much as the order of release being interfered with; the petitioner is deemed to have continued in her services. As such, the respondent University had violated the order, dated 02.06.2015, passed in WP(c)1734/2014, in not allowing the petitioner to continue with her services after the order of her release, dated 21.03.2014, was so interfered with by this Court. No other meaning can be assigned to the directions as passed by this Court vide order, dated 02.06.2015, passed in WP(c)1734/2014, and that too, in view of the findings as recorded therein by this Court to arrive at a decision to interfere with the order, dated 21.03.2014. 17. At this stage, it is to be noted that the respondent authorities had proceeded with the selection process as initiated vide the subsequent advertisement No. 04/2016 for the post of Public Relation and Information Officer(P.R.I.O.) and appointed one Shri Samaresh Barman against the said post. This Court having not passed any interim directions in the matter at the initial stage, the respondent authorities proceeded with the selection process and appointed Shri Samaresh Barman as the Public Relation and Information Officer(P.R.I.O.). It is to be noted that said Shri Samaresh Barman was impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in WP(c)2561/2016. 18. The Respondent No. 4 being not at fault for the said appointment as effected in his case; this Court after a lapse of such considerable period of time, would not like to interfere with the appointment so made in respect of the Respondent No. 4 although the same was in violation of the directions passed by this Court vide order, dated 02.06.2015, in WP(c)1734/2014, which in effect had continued the services of the petitioner in the Tezpur University. 19. In view of the above conclusions as reached by this Court that the petitioner’s services in terms of the directions passed by this Court vide order, dated 02.06.2015, in WP(c)1734/2014, continued in the Tezpur University; the following directions are called for in the matter: (i). The respondent authorities shall deem the petitioner to be continuing in her services w.e.f. 22.03.2014, in view of the interference made by this Court vide the order, dated 02.06.2015, of the order of release of the petitioner, dated 21.03.2024. (ii). The post held by the petitioner having been filled up by a subsequent selection process and the Respondent No. 4 in WP(c)2561/2016, having been appointed against the said post of Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.); this Court having not interfered with the appointment of the Respondent No. 4; the respondent University shall now allow the petitioner to continue in her services Page No.# 6/8 against any other equivalent post and/or create a supernumary post for continuation of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 22.03.2014. (iii). This Court, vide order, dated 02.06.2015, having held that the order of release, dated 21.03.2014, issued to the petitioner was based on a misconduct as alleged against her in the earlier order of termination, dated 13.12.2013; the respondent University would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by drawing up appropriate proceedings in the matter and coming to a due conclusion thereon with regard to the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the order of termination, dated 13.12.2013, by providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (iv). The continuation in the services of the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings that would be initiated and concluded against the petitioner in terms of the directions hereinabove. (v). The authorities of the Tezpur University in terms of the directions passed hereinabove; shall forthwith allow the petitioner to resume her services in the manner as required hereinabove, without, however, disturbing the services of the Respondent No. 4 and it is only after the petitioner is permitted to resume her services, that appropriate proceedings in terms of the directions passed hereinabove, shall be so instituted against the petitioner. (vi). Given the facts and circumstances as involved in the matter, on resumption of her services by the petitioner, she would not be entitled to any arrears of pay and allowances. However, the pay and allowances of the petitioner shall be notionally calculated from 22.03.2014, till the date she is allowed to resume her services and basing on the notional calculation so made also including therein, the Revisions of Pay(RoP) that may have occasioned in the meanwhile, fix the pay of the petitioner in the post of Public Relation and Information Officer(P.R.I.O.) and/or any other equivalent post available or a supernumary post created for the purpose by the university and thereafter, her salaries shall be duly released in terms thereof, till the proceedings that is to be initiated against the petitioner, is so concluded and orders are passed thereon. 20. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.” Page No.# 7/8 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned order on the ground that though the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that the appointment and selection of the respondent no.4 to the post of Public Relation and Information Officer (P.R.I.O.), pursuant to the advertisement No.04/2016, is in violation of the order and directions passed by this Court on 02.06.2015 in WP(C) No.1734/2014, the learned Single judge has refused to interfere with the appointment and selection of the respondent no.4, which is illegal. The learned counsel has further argued that the learned Single Judge in the direction no.vi of paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment directed to create a supernumerary post for the purpose of adjusting the private respondent as P.R.I.O. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. Vs. Chander Hass & Anr. reported in 2007 0 Supreme (SC) 1555, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Another Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana reported in 2009 0 Supreme (SC) 1504 and Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal and Ors. reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 350 and has argued that position of law is very clear and the Court cannot issue any direction for creation of a supernumerary post. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the appointment of the respondent no.4 of the writ petition on the post of P.R.I.O, pursuant to the advertisement No.04/2016, because the respondent no.4 cannot Page No.# 8/8 be said to be at fault for such appointment. The appellant University despite setting aside of the termination order of the private respondent/writ petitioner, has continued with the selection and for that the person who was appointed as P.R.I.O, pursuant to the advertisement No. 04/2016, cannot be penalized. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Court cannot direct for creation of any supernumerary post, is concerned, we are of the view that as a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has not passed any order for creation of supernumerary post and has simply suggested that the private respondent/writ petitioner be adjusted on any other equivalent post available or a supernumerary post created for the purpose by the University. Such suggestion cannot be termed as direction and as such, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant