Committee of Management and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of present petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 19.11.2007 by which election of the society held on 3.9.2007 has not been approved and a fresh election is directed to be held within one month.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate, appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran was holding the charge of the Vice-Chancellor. The date of hearing was fixed on 7.11.2007. According to him, the hearing was not concluded and an understanding was given that further hearing will take place but no further hearing has been provided. He submitted that the order claimed to have been passed on 19.11.2007 but the same was dispatched by the office of the Registrar on 7.12.2007. Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran was holding charge as a Vice-Chancellor only up to 21.11.2007 and on 22.11.2007, a regular Vice-Chancellor Sri R. C. Saraswati has assumed the charge. On this fact he submitted that the order passed was not legal order and unless the order is dispatched, the said order cannot be said to be a valid order and the day the order was dispatched Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran was not the Vice-Chancellor, therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside.

In support of the contention he relied upon the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, State of Punjab and Others Vs. Balbir Singh and Others, and in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Others,

No other argument has been advanced.

I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Merely because the order was dispatched on a subsequent date may be little late the order cannot be said to be no order in the eye of law. The order has been signed on 19.11.2007 by Sri Nitin Ramesh Gokaran when he was officiating as a Vice-Chancellor and had a power to pass the order. Therefore, the said order cannot be said to be illegal. So far as the opportunity of hearing is concerned, the order reveals that the date of hearing was fixed on 7.11.2007 when both the parties were heard and they have filed their written submissions. There is nothing to suggest that the hearing was subsequently adjourned, therefore, the allegation that the hearing was not concluded on 7.11.2007 and a further date was fixed is based on no material and has no substance.

In my opinion, none of the decisions cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is applicable to the present case.

The case of Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), relates to the departmental enquiry against the Government servant. It has been held that any action decided to be taken against the Government servant found guilty of misconduct is a judicial order and as such it cannot be varied at the will of the authority who is empowered to impose the punishment.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika (supra), the dispute was relating to the dismissal of the Government officer. It has been held that the order of dismissal would become effective only on the publication or communication to officer concerned. Mere passing of an order of dismissal is not effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. An order of dismissal passed by appropriate authority and kept on its file without communicating it to the officer concerned or otherwise publishing it does not take effect as from the date on which the order is actually written out by the said authority ; such an order can only be effective after it is communicated to the officer concerned or is otherwise published.

Similar view has been taken in the case of State of Punjab and other v. Balbir Singh etc.etc. (supra) and in the case of Union of India v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra).

In none of the aforesaid decisions it has been held that if the order is despatched after 10-15 days from the date of passing of the order, such order is not legal order in the eye of law. In this view of the matter, all the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

In the result, writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.