JUDGEMENT
BISWANATH RATH,J. -
(1.)This is a Writ Petition filed by an ousted employee by the Employer, the National Law University of Odisha, Cuttack, herein after called as, "NLUO" seeking a challenge to the letter dated 17.10.2020 issued by the NLUO informing the Petitioner of its decision for not giving any further extension to the Petitioner in the Post of Assistant Finance Officer and that he will be relieved from his duties on 19th October, 2020 at 9 a.m. In the said letter the Petitioner was also directed to hand over charge along with all Files/Documents/Audit Reports in his custody to one Mr.Bibhu Prasad Kar, Assistant Registrar of the NLUO, particularly on 19th October, 2020 at 9 a.m. The Petitioner in assailing the impugned order at Annexure-6 has involved the following prayer :-
"Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp.Parties and after hearing the parties be pleased to :
(a) quash the letter dated 17.10.2020 under Annexure-6 issued by the O.P.No.5; And
(b) direct the O.P.No.5 to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Assistant Finance Officer at National Law University, Odisha within a stipulated time period along with all consequential service benefits; And
(c) O.P.No.4 may be directed to conduct an impartial an fair investigation taking into consideration the reports submitted by the O.P.No.3 and the Special Audit Report under Annexure-7 series. And
(d) regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 14.10.2018 along with all consequential service benefits;
And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper."
(2.)Factual aspect involving the case is that the Petitioner is a Holder of Degree in Master in Business Administration (Finance) from Sikkim-Manipal University and Master of Finance and control from the Utkal University. While working in the Choudwar Municipality, finding publication of an Advertisement on 17.10.2015 in the Odiya Premier "The Samaj", vide Annexure-2 applied for the post of Assistant Finance Officer. The Petitioner was called for the interview vide letter dated 15.9.2016. The Petitioner claimed, involving a competitive selection process he was found successful in the interview, and therefore, was duly selected for the post of Assistant Finance Officer in the NLUO. Communication of his selection by the NLUO, vide their letter dated 14.10.2016 finds place at Annexure-4 of the Brief. Referring to Annexure-4, the Petitioner claimed, vide Clause-2 of the terms and conditions therein, he was offered with the Post initially for one year with further disclosure that the University has the rights to decide upon his continuation based on his satisfactory performance. In the same communication through the terms and conditions, the Petitioner was assured of long term employment and a favourable decision be taken on his continuation by the Employer with further information that the Medi-claim Insurance Policy purchased in his favour will cover both the Petitioner and his family. While disclosing the gross salary package, vide Clause-5 and Clause-6 of the terms and conditions, the Employer informed the Petitioner that his service in the University may be terminated without assigning any reason at one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof with further rider in favour of the Petitioner that if he wants to quit the job that also required either one month's notice or on payment of salary in lieu thereof. Further under Clause-7 of the terms and conditions the Petitioner was also informed that his appointment was subject to the Regulations of the University as may be in force at any time. In issuing such offer of appointment, the Petitioner was requested to communicate his acceptance and joining duty at the earliest on or before 1st November, 2016, failure of which offer of appointment shall stand cancelled. Further pleading disclosed, vide a correspondence dated 4.11.2019, vide Annexure-5, the University communicated the Petitioner its decision in the matter of renewal of contractual service period in the NLUO. In a subsequent development the Petitioner was communicated with another correspondence dated 17th October, 2020, vide Annexure-6 where it was communicated that it was decided that there was no need of grant of further extension to the Petitioner and that he shall be relieved from his duty on 19th October, along with other directions indicated herein. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is filed with the prayer indicated herein above.
(3.)Er.N.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner in the above background of the case in reference to the conditions of service, reading through Annexure-4, the Advertisement at Annexure-2 and looking to the nature of such Advertisement contended that the Advertisement nowhere disclosed that the engagement in the post of Assistant Finance Officer will be temporary, on the other hand the Advertisement only disclosed that filling up such Post will not only be contractual but Party selected shall also be entitled to consolidated pay. Er.Mohanty thus contended that once the Advertisement does not say the period of appointment, reading through the terms and conditions in the offer of appointment, vide Annexure-4, particularly through Clause-2 therein, there was no dispute that the offer of appointment was initially for one year and the continuation of the Petitioner was to depend on his satisfactory performance. It is taking at this stage to the extension in favour of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-5 and reading through the pleadings at the instance of the Petitioner at Paragraph-5 of the Brief, Er.Mohanty contended that though the Petitioner's terms under the offer of appointment, vide Annexure-4 was to expire on 31st October, 2017, he has been given extension in his post for another year to expire on 31st October, 2018. The Petitioner was again granted another extension of his service up to 17th October, 2019 for one year and through Annexure-5, the Petitioner was given the last extension commencing 18th October, 2019 but was not given further extension from 19th October, 2020. Taking here to the terms and conditions, Er.Mohanty reading through the condition at Clause-4 contended that the Petitioner was given a scope of continuation inasmuch as with likelihood of offer on long term employment. Er. Mohanty, learned counsel contended that for the condition at Clause-6 of the terms and conditions, in the event the Employer desired to take out the service of the Petitioner in the Post of Assistant Finance Officer, he ought to be given either one month's notice or to take out the service of the Petitioner on ending of the contractual period but however on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. In the above background, Er.Mohanty contended that Annexure-4 is the only offer of appointment with terms and conditions and the extensions provided to the Petitioner all through disclosed that the terms and conditions in his previous appointment letter hold good but with no affect on salary. Er.Mohanty, therefore, on reiteration of the Clause-6 of the terms and conditions in Annexure-4 contended that while granting extension the Employer continued with the terms and conditions with offer of appointment and as the condition of service at Clause-6 is binding on both the Parties, in the event the Employer was not desirous of continuing with the Petitioner, it ought to have proceeded in terms of Clause-6 of the terms and conditions and there is no possibility of ouster of the Petitioner otherwise. Er.Mohanty thus contended, for the Employer in issuing the letter at Annexure-6 for terms at Clause-6 of the service condition at Annexure-4, the communication taking out the services of the Petitioner has no place to stand for being contrary to the terms and conditions set by the Employer itself. Er.Mohanty further taking into account the development taken place in the continuing of the Petitioner contended that as the Petitioner's service was found satisfactory, he has not only been provided several extensions but he was also granted an increase in his consolidated pay raising it from Rs.40,000/- earlier to Rs.50,000/- per month. Er.Mohanty further while alleging the action of the NLUO hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, contended, the impugned order suffers on account of violation of principle of natural justice. Er.Mohanty in reference to his pleading in the written note of submission contended that while the University continued with most of the engagements under the Advertisement and regularized many of them, it has singled out the Petitioner in not allowing him to further continue while even allowing the post to continue. In reference to further engagement, Er.Mohanty contended that in taking out the service of the Petitioner, there is no filling of such post as yet. However, the claim of the University that in the meantime, the post is already filled in but the person claimed to have joined is in the post of Finance Officer, which has nothing to do with the Petitioner's ouster in the post of Asst. Finance Officer. Er.Mohanty contended that even assuming the person joined on deputation making position of the Petitioner, Er.Mohanty taking aid of the settled principle holding the field contended that there should not be substitution of a contractual employee by engagement of another contractual employee. Er.Mohanty further contended, for there is continuing with the post by a Deputationist, this clearly indicates, the University is in desirous of continuing with such post and in the process, on illegal ouster of the Petitioner, the University has come to engage a person on deputation. Er.Mohanty thus claimed support of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding there cannot be replacement of a contractual employee by another contractual employee.