M.D. University, Rohtak v. Ajit Singh Nanda and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arun Chatterjee
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2007-09-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. It will now be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.D. University, Rohtak

Respondents

Ajit Singh Nanda
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Janani
• Nidhesh Gupta

Counsels for Respondents

• Ramesh K. Haritash
• D.K. Thakur
• Kailash Chand
• Prashant Bhushan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal, under the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, arises from Regular Second Appeal No. 1735 of 2005, challenging a judgment in respect of a notification dated 29 July 1997 that declared a post held by Ajit Singh Nanda as vacant with effect from 15 January 1996. Ajit Singh Nanda filed a suit for declaration and a mandatory injunction contending that the notification declaring the post vacant was illegal and void. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that declaring the post vacant amounted to removal from service and that no enquiry in compliance with Clause D2(8) of Part II of the Rules had been held, thereby rendering the imposition of any major penalty unsustainable. The University challenged this result in a Special Leave petition, leading to this Supreme Court hearing. The High Court’s decision to dismiss the regular second appeal was upheld by the appellate court, and the Supreme Court granted leave, ultimately concluding that there was no substantial ground to interfere with the judgment of the regular second appeal. The Court stated that the appellant failed to demonstrate grounds that could render the lower judgments unsustainable. The final disposition was that the appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and it left the respondent free to proceed with execution in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 136Clause D 2(8) of Part II of the Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-University contends that the notification declaring the post vacant was not a valid act of removal under the established rules and that proper due process, including adherence to Clause D 2(8) of Part II of the Rules, was not required for a mere declaration of vacancy; it asserts that any violation of the procedures should not automatically negate the declaration of vacancy and seeks dismissal of the suit and confirmation of the appellate order.

Contentions of Respondents

Ajit Singh Nanda contends that declaring the post vacant amounted to removal from service without proper inquiry that complies with the relevant rules, violating due process; he seeks a declaration that the vacancy declaration is void and restoration to service.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A _) ..._ ## M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHT AK ## v. AJIT SINGH NANDAL AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 B IT ARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SA THASIV AM,JJ.] ## _Service Law:_ _Post held by an employee declared by University Notification as_ C _vacant-Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming the notification to be null and void-Suit dismissed by trial court but decreed by first appellate court holding that declaration of post as vacant amounted to removal of the employee from service and as no inquiry in compliance with relevant rules was held, imposition of major penalty could not be sustained-_ D _Second appeal of University dismissed Held: There is no reason to entertain the instant appeal as no case has been made out to interfere with the judgment passed in regular second appeal-Constitution of India-Article 136._ ## CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CiviJ Appeal No. 4200 of2007. ## E > From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1735 of 2005. S. Janani and Nidhesh Gupta for the Appellant. F Ramesh K. Haritash, D.K. Thakur, Kailash Chand and Prashant Bhushan for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ## G ## ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12th January, 2006 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at· If 930 931 ## M.D.UNIVERSITY,ROHTAKv.AJITSINGHNANDAL Chandigarh in Regular Second appeal No. 1735 of 2005 whereby the High Court had dismissed the regular second appeal filed by M.D. University, Rohtak - appellant herein - and affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court against which the said second appeal was filed by the appellant. 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under. B 4. A suit was filed by Ajit Singh Nanda! for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming that the notification dated 29th July, 1997 by which the post held by him was declared vacant with effect from 15th January, 1996 was illegal and null and void. On contest, the suit was dismissed by the trial court and an appeal preferred by the respondent- Ajit Singh Nanda!- before the appellate court was allowed, _inter alia,_ on the findings that Ajit Singh Nanda\ C was permitted to resume his duty on 11th October 1996 by the Registrar of M.D. University without imposing any condition, namely, requirement as to taking prior sanction of the Vice Chancellor, M.D. University and as the declaration of the post held by Ajit Singh Nanda! as vacant amounted to his removal from service and also that since no enquiry in compliance with Clause D 2(8) of Part II of the Rules was held, the imposition of the aforesaid major penalty could not be sustained. On the aforesaid findings the regular second appeal filed by M.D. University, Rohtak before the High Court was dismissed by the impugned judgment. This appeal in respect of which leave has already been granted has arisen from the aforesaid judgment of the High Court dismissing the regular second appeal. E E 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal as the appellant has failed to satisfy us that the grounds on which the regular second appeal was dismissed could at all be said to be non sustainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the High Court passed in the second appeal. There will be no order as to costs. It will now be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution case instituted by him to execute the decree in accordance with law. RP. Appeal dismissed.