2025:CGHC:18425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 2780 of 2015 Dr. Shobh Nath Singh, S/o Late Shri R.A. Singh, aged about 65 Years, R/o 30/4-A, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through Its Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, 3. Vice-Chancellor, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Yashkaran Singh, Advocate apepared on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L.. For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 23/04/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the order dated 31/03/2015 (Annexure - P/1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect. 2. Facts of the case is that the petitioner is a retired executive officer from Steel Authority of India and had even served in Larsen & Toubro Limited at Patna on ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.29 17:43:55 +0530 -2- the post of Consultant (Maintenance &Operations). It was during this period that the respondent University issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Senior Technical Advisors under Consultancy Services (Administration and Development) for a period of 3 years. The petitioner submitted his application for appointment and subsequently on being meritorious was appointed on the said post Vide order dated 23.06.2014. However, the said order contained terms which were self-contradictory and for the said reason on the representation and objection raised by the petitioner, a revised order was issued on 26.11.2014 appointing the petitioner on the said post for a period of 3 years exercising the powers vested under Statute No.2 of the University. The said appointment had requisite sanction, permission and approval from the Executive Council of the University. The petitioner, on account of the said appointment, submitted his resignation with Larsen & Tourbo Limited and gave his joining to the respondent University. The petitioner undertook various assignments for the betterment of the educational curriculum of the University and organized various programmes. Needless to mention that the appointment of the petitioner was a tenure appointment for a period of 3 years. Unfortunately, as a sudden shock and surprise, vide order dated 31.03.2015,the University terminated the services of the petitioner without stating any reason for such an arbitrary action. The petitioner submitted his representations before the Chancellor of the University but then despite all efforts no steps were taken by the respondent-authorities and the services of the petitioner have been abruptly terminated. The impugned order dated 31.03.2015 is absolutely arbitrary and has resulted in serious loss to the petitioner as the petitioner on account of the said selection having been appointed for 3 years had submitted his resignation from his previous employer and had given his joining in the respondent University. The order of termination smacks of mala-fide and is wholly unreasonable. The petitioner has never been issued any prior notice before issuance of the termination order. Hence, this petition. -3- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working with Service Care Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, the petitioner was engaged by the respondent No.2 as Senior Technical Advisor (Administration & Development), under the consultancy services initially for a period of 03 years on a daily honorarium of Rs.3500/- per working days by the order of the respondent No.2 dated 23/06/2014 (Annexure P/7). Thereafter he joined his services with the respondent No.2 and was handed over the charge of Training, Research, Publication and General Development related Work vide order of the respondent No.3 dated 08/08/2014 (Annexure P/9). The engagement order of the petitioner dated 23/06/2014 was revised by the respondent No.2 (Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Techinical University) order dated 26/11/2014 (Annexure P/8). He further submits that the petitioner was performing his duties as and when require with all his sincerity and dedication. No compliant whatsoever was made against the performance of the petitioner. Abruptly, the respondent No.2 through it’s Registrar vide order dated 31/03/2015 (Annexure P/1) terminated the engagement of the petitioner as Senior Technical Advisor (Administration & Development) with immediate effect. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Though no allegation is leveled in the impugned order, however the engagement of the petitioner was for a period 03 years and it could only been terminated by giving a notice of 01 month by either of the parties. In the case in hand, no such notice was given to the petitioner. Therefore he submits that the impugned order deserve to be set aside and the relief as claimed in the writ petition may be granted. To buttress his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble M.P. High Court in case of Vijay Singh Yadav Vs. Bhopal Development Authority & Another in WP No. 15125 of 2019 and coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Kurmi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WPS No. 2350/2022 order dated 05/04/2022 and Deepak Dhara Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. in WPS No. 5238/2016 order dated 06/01/2025. -4- 4. Per contra, Shri Neeraj Choubey, appearing on behalf of the respondent/Univertsity submits that the petitioner was not appointed on any post, therefore question of his termination does not arise. He submits that the petitioner was only engaged as Technical Advisor at the sweet will of Vice Chancellor and as such as and when his services were not required, his engagement as Senior Technical Advisor (Administration & Development) is terminated. He submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order as the petitioner cannot claim the continuation of his engagement as a matter of right. He placed reliance upon the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in case of I.S. Chandrakar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 1556/2014 order dated 24/04/2024. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appended documents. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it would be essential to quote relevant portion of the order dated 23/06/2014 (Annexure P/7) which reads as under:- “Pursuant to the decision of the 32nd Executive Council meeting on 03.04.2014, and keeping the immediate needs of the University, it is decided to engage Shri S.N. Singh as Sr. Technical Advisor (Administration and Development), under the consultancy services, initially for a period of three years, on a daily honorarium of Rs.3500/- per working day. Apart from the above, they shall be assigned official tours as per the requirement of the University, during which they shall be entitled for TA and DA as applicable. Prior to the period of engagement of three years, if the Sr. Technical Advisor under the consultancy scheme decides to resign, or if the University wishes to discharge his services, either can be done on one months notice”. 7. From perusal of Annexure P/9 it also appears that in compliance of the engagement, the petitioner was also provided with certain responsibility. It -5- appears that the appointment order was revised vide order dated 26/11/2014 which envisages that the engagement of position of Senior Technical Advisor, is as per Statute No. 2 of the CSVTU. However, the fact remains that initial engagement order provides that the period of engagement was for 03 years. It further envisages that if the petitioner wants to resign or University wishes to discharge his services, either can be done on 01 month notice. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner was not appointed or only engaged, his engagement firstly for the period of 03 years and secondly he can only be disengaged by giving 01 month notice. The respondent in disengagement has not brought any notice which supposed to have been given to the petitioner. Naturally, the petitioner may not have been appointed but a right has been created by the respondent in favour of petitioner by engaging him utilizing his services for 03 years looking to his expertise in respective field. In all fairness if the service of the petitioner was not required by the University, it should have adhere to the engagement order dated 23/06/2014 by giving him a show cause notice for 01 month. 8. In light of the above, as the respondent / University could not comply with it’s own order. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has made out case for interference in the impugned order. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 & 3 does not help in the given facts and circumstances of this case as the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is passed in contravention of the conditions provided in engagement order (Annexure P/7). 9. As a consequence, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order (Annexure P/1) is hereby by quashed. Consequence to follow. 10.No order as to cost. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish