Order
1. These two appeals can be disposed of by a common order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:
One Dr. B. Prasad was appointed as the Head of the Postgraduate Department of Commerce in Ranchi University. The 1st respondent had a dispute regarding seniority with the said Dr. B. Prasad. The appointment of Dr. B. Prasad was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed that writ petition. The High Court noted that Dr. B. Prasad was not earlier holding any substantive post and that he was merely working as temporary lecturer whose term would have expired in February 1968 but was given extension till April 1968. The High Court noted that the said Dr. B. Prasad thereafter applied for extraordinary leave without pay in order to attend some special training. The High Court noted that instead of going for any special training, Dr. B. Prasad took up appointment as a Land Valuation Officer. Having worked as a Land Valuation Officer, Dr. B. Prasad, for reasons best known to him, decided to come back to the University on 12-8-1968. The High Court held that in these circumstances the services of Dr. B. Prasad for the purposes of seniority and eligibility for promotion to the post of Reader could only start from 12-8-1968. The High Court also held that Dr. B. Prasad would rank junior to Respondent 1. The High Court, on these findings, set aside the appointment of Dr. B. Prasad as Head of the Department and directed the University to consider the matter regarding appointment of Head of the Department afresh.
3. In spite of the fact that the High Court gave a categoric finding that Dr. B. Prasad's service could only start from 12-8-1968, the then Vice-Chancellor of the University (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1997) purported to condone the break in service of Dr. B. Prasad and passed an order permitting Dr. B. Prasad to continue to work as Head of the Department. It is claimed that the Vice-Chancellor did this after taking the advice from the then acting Registrar of the University.
4. The 1st respondent then filed a writ petition challenging the order condoning the break in service and continuing Dr. B. Prasad as Head of the Department. He also filed a contempt petition for having wilfully sought to overreach the order of the High Court. In the contempt petition, the High Court has held the Vice-Chancellor (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1997) and the Registrar of the University (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1997) guilty of contempt. The High Court has imposed fine of Rs 2000 and Rs 1000 respectively on them. The High Court has also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on the Vice-Chancellor. Hence these appeals.
5. We have heard the parties at length. It has been submitted that the Vice-Chancellor was acting within his powers in order to condone the break in service. In support of this, reliance is placed upon Article 222 of the Statutes of 1980 which reads as under:
“222. The appointing authority may, upon such conditions as it may deem fit in each case condone all interruptions in the service of a university servant if he were to vacate that appointment at the time the condonation is applied for.”
6. It is to be seen on a plain reading of the Statute that the power to condone the delay can only be exercised in case the servant would be vacating the appointment, if condonation is not granted. Admittedly, in this case, there was no question of Dr. B. Prasad having to vacate the service. Therefore, this Statute did not empower the Vice-Chancellor to condone the break in service. No other power could be shown to us, by which break in service, could have been condoned.
7. More important the Vice-Chancellor was admittedly aware of the judgment of the High Court. The order of the High Court was very categoric. Dr. B. Prasad's services, for the purposes of promotion and seniority, only started on 12-8-1968. The High Court had categorically noted that after taking extraordinary leave in the guise of going for special training, Dr. B. Prasad had taken up a job as a Land Valuation Officer. The High Court had correctly held that having taken up a job in some other service, there was no question of Dr. B. Prasad's retaining a lien on his service in the University. As Dr. B. Prasad had no lien in the University, his service in the University only started when he rejoined on 12-8-1968. The judgment of the High Court made it very clear that the decision to take the earlier period of service into reckoning was not correct and could not be done. Thus, clearly the break in service could not have been condoned. In view of these categoric findings and decision of the High Court, one fails to understand how any reasonable person could still condone the break in service and pass an order continuing Dr. B. Prasad as Head of the Department. The only explanation is that the attempt was to overreach the judgment of the High Court and to favour Dr. B. Prasad in spite of the judgment. This being so, in our view, the High Court has correctly held the Vice-Chancellor guilty of contempt. We, thus, see no reason to interfere. Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1997 will accordingly stand dismissed with costs.
8. We grant Dr. D.P Gupta four weeks' time to pay the fine and the costs failing which proceedings for recovery may be initiated by the High Court and the punishment in default to be imposed.
9. In Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1997 it is brought to our notice that the appellant was not the then acting Registrar who advised the Vice-Chancellor. The appellant merely carried out the order of the Vice-Chancellor by issuing the notification. He was bound to carry out the order of the Vice-Chancellor. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the order of the High Court as against this appellant. Criminal Appeal No. 415 of 1997 is accordingly allowed. The High Court order as against this appellant is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.