Sendrick A. Sangma vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors.

These two writ petitions whose cause of actions and facts being similar are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 248 of 2017 and WP(C) No. 249 of 2017, were appointed as Lecturers in the Department of Business Administration on a College Post in respondent No. 3 College on 01.09.2008 and 3.08.2009 respectively. By letter dated 06.02.2017 the petitioners were informed by the College authorities that they were relieved of their College duties w.e.f. 16.12.2016 as the concerned Department had been closed with the last batch of students having completed their term.

The case as projected by the petitioners is that the closure of the concerned Department which was affiliated to the respondent No. 4 University is arbitrary and in violation of the Rules and Acts as framed by the respondent No. 4 (NEHU) and resulted in the ousting of the petitioners from service and deprivation of their livelihood.

I have heard Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Barua, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2, Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent No. 3 is whimsical and arbitrary, inasmuch as, without proper consideration, the course i.e. BBA (Bachelor of Business Administration) was discontinued which in turn threw the writ petitioners out of employment. Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel strenuously argues that the treatment meted out to the petitioners is unfair and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and that the discontinuance of the course was in violation of the NEHU Ordinance OB-6, which in Rule 7 (1), provides that no College/Institution/Course of study shall be dissolved or abolished by the Governing Body without making prior arrangement for admission of its students in other affiliated colleges and without making alternate arrangements for the employment of the permanent members of the staff and not without obtaining prior approval of the Academic Council, Executive Council and the University Grants Commission. He submits that the respondent College without adhering to the said procedure is therefore liable to be directed to take back the petitioners into service, and to restart the course which has been since discontinued.

Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in his reply has at the outset submitted that the petitioners were not serving against a permanent or sanctioned post but only against a College post as reflected in the letter of appointment and as such no right of claim to regular employment would accrue in any manner. With regard to the closure of the Department he submits the same was necessitated by the lack of students enrolment and the Governing Body while resolving to close the said Department had urged the respondent No. 3 College to consider the opening of new Departments or offer courses which are more relevant and useful. He further submits that in spite of the huge financial loss incurred, the Management allowed all students who were enrolled in BBA Course to complete the same to avoid any problem that the students might face with regard to completion of their studies. He further submits that the decision to close the BBA course was duly communicated to the respondent No. 4 University vide letter dated 18.10.2014. He therefore submits that there was no infirmity or arbitrariness in the decision to discontinue the course and the same was done bona fide in the interest of the Academic Institution. In this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of P.M. Bhargava and Ors. vs. University Grants Commission & Anr. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 661 where in para 13 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Courts are not experts in Academic matters and is not for them to decide as to what course should be taught in Universities and what be their curriculum.

On the point of de-affiliation and continuance of employment of the petitioners even after the date when the affiliation was not renewed, learned counsel refers to the additional affidavit filed to meet this point and submits that though the affiliation was not applied for renewal at the relevant point of time, the same was corrected on payment of late fines and fees to the respondent University and the BBA course stood affiliated till 2013. He again reiterates his submissions that there has not been any violation of the petitioners' rights, inasmuch as, the petitioners were not permanent employees and that the discontinuance of the course cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious.

Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Mr. K. Barua, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 2 have no submissions or points of arguments to add to the discourse as the put up by the petitioners and the respondent No. 3.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the main grievance of the writ petitioners is their being terminated on the discontinuance of the BBA Department in which they were appointed as Lecturers in College posts. The petitioners it can be seen have a genuine grievance, inasmuch as, they have been serving the College for 7 to 8 years at a stretch and would naturally harbour a legitimate expectation of securing a permanent post, which in these days of rampant unemployment is very difficult even for qualified persons. However, in the stated circumstances of the present case they cannot be said to be any violation of any right, vested or otherwise nor any violation of the NEHU Ordinance as canvassed by the petitioners. The Ordinance, prescribing safeguards only for students and permanent employees had been complied with by the College by continuing the course albeit by payment of late fees which is evidenced by the letter dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-IV to the Additional affidavit of respondent No. 3). The petitioners also not holding substantive posts would also not be eligible for consideration under this Ordinance. The judgment as placed in the case of P.M. Bhargava and Ors. vs. University Grants Commission & Anr. (supra) also has a bearing, as Courts are not the experts in academic matters and it is not for this Court to direct as to what course should be adopted or what course is to be discontinued. However, it is noted with concern the manner in which the respondent No. 4 regulated the affiliation process which in the opinion of the Court has been conducted in a most mechanical and casual fashion.

Be that as it may, and though the petitioners cannot be said to have any actionable claim, theirs is a fit case for the respondent No. 3 to consider sympathetically for affording further employment in any other stream in which they are competent. It is noted with appreciation the concession given by Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, who has submitted that the petitioners may file their representations before the respondent No. 3 which he assures will be considered sympathetically.

In view of the above without expressing any further on any other aspect, it is hereby directed that the writ petitioners prefer a representation before the respondent No. 3 within 3(three) weeks from the date of this order and the respondent No. 3 to consider the same within 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of their representations thereof.

With the above noted directions, these two writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

No order as to costs.