Allowed

Manish Raj and Another v. Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021WRIA/898/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by two Assistant Professors seeking acceptance of their resignations. The court held that the Vice Chancellor's refusal was invalid as it relied on irrelevant grounds of faculty shortage. Relying on university regulations, the court deemed the resignations accepted after the three-month notice period expired without contrary decision.

What did the court decide?

Resignation of petitioners deemed accepted; direction issued to relieve them forthwith and issue experience certificates for their new appointment at AIIMS, Deoghar.

Manish Raj and Another Vs Uttar Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 898 of 2021 Petitioner :- Manish Raj And Another Respondent :- Uttar Pradesh University Of Medical Sciences And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Singh,Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶5

The present petition has been filed jointly by two petitioners. The petitioner No.1 is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthopaedics and petitioner No.2 is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the institution namely University of Medical Sciences, Safai, Etawah. They are seeking quashing of the orders dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University separately whereby the resignation letters tendered by them on 15.02.2020 have been rejected.

¶6

The contention is that the petitioners had applied for the posts of Associate Professor in AIIMS, Deoghar which were notified by an advertisement dated 10.08.2020. No-Objection Certificate was sought for appearing in the interview which were initially not given to the petitioners. And, as such, they had filed a Writ Petition No.7617 of 2020 jointly with the prayer to issue a direction to the respondent-University to issue No-Objection certificate in the standard format so as to enable them to appear in the interview for the posts of Associate Professor. On the intervention of this Court, No-Objection Certificates were issued on 01.10.2020 certifying that the University has no objection to the applications submitted by the petitioners for the post of Associate Professor in AIIMS, Deoghar. The No Objection Certificates appended at page No.27 & 28 further shows that it was communicated in the event of their selection, the petitioners will be relieved from the duty to take up the post of Associate Professors in AIIMS, Deoghar.

¶7

After selection to the post of Associate Professors in AIIMS, Deoghar, both the petitioners tendered resignation on 15.10.2020. The resignation letters submitted by petitioner No.1 namely Dr. Manish Raj and petitioner No.2 namely Dr. Priyanka Rai dated 15.10.2020 have been appended at page No.'37' and '38' of the paper book. The result of the selection, however, has finally been declared on 16.10.2020 and the

¶8

petitioners are waiting to join in AIIMS, Deoghar. When no decision was taken on the resignation submitted by the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the University to issue relieving letters and experience certificates to the petitioners alongwith other documents so as to enable them to join their respective positions in AIIMS, Deoghar.

¶9

In the present writ petition, orders were passed on 22.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 by this Court calling upon the counsel for the respondent-University to intimate the decision of the competent authority. On 28.01.2021, copies of the orders dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University refusing to accept the resignation submitted by the petitioners were supplied before the Court. The writ petition has been ammended, thereafter, to seek writ of certiorari for quashing of the orders of rejection of the representation, of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2.

¶10

The reasons given in the order of rejection of the resignation letters of the petitioners are two folds. Firstly that in case, the resignation letters submitted by the petitioners are accepted, the number of teachers working in the University would fell short than the minimum standards prescribed for Under-Graduate and Post-Graduate courses. It has further been stated therein that the petitioners had absented from duty from 14.11.2020 without any information and the said act of the petitioners may entail disciplinary action.

¶11

Lastly, it is stated that the institution-in-question is designated for treating Covid patients and on account of absence of the petitioners, the work of the institution had suffered.

¶12

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the reasons given in the orders of rejection of the resignations are irrelevant, in as much as, none of the reasons could be validly assigned for refusal.

¶13

The submission is that the act of the Vice Chancellor of the University in not relieving the petitioners from duty is nothing but harassment. The Regulations governing the services of the Medical Officer/Faculty members of the respondent-University namely The Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, First Regulations' 2011 have been placed before the Court. Relevant Regulation 100 is quoted as under:-

¶14

"100 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these regulations, a permanent employee of the Institute including a faculty member, may resign after giving three months' notice in writing to the appointing authority or paying to the Institute three months' pay in lieu

¶15

thereof.

¶16

(2) Such resignation shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the appointing authority.

¶17

(3) The appointing authority may refuse to accept the resignation if a disciplinary proceeding is pending or in process against the employee."

¶18

A reading of the same indicates that an employee including the faculty Member may submit his resignation after giving three months notice in writing to the appointing authority or paying to the Institute three months' pay in lieu thereof.

¶19

Clause (2) of the Regulation 100 further provides that the resignation shall not be effective unless it is accepted by the competent authority. Clause (3), however, provides that the appointing authority may refuse to accept the resignation, if a disciplinary proceeding is pending or in process against the employee.

¶20

The admitted fact amongst the parties is that neither the disciplinary proceeding is pending nor is in process against the petitioners. This also cannot be so placed from the reasons given in the order impugned.

¶21

It is stated by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the petitioners have absented from 14.11.2020 after one month of submitting their resignation on 15.10.2020 as they were under the impression that similarly situated employees have been relieved within one month of submission of the resignation.

¶22

The fact narrated in the writ petition that other teachers working in the institution have been relieved within the period of one month from the date of submission of resignation is not disputed.

¶23

It can also not be disputed that the Vice Chancellor of the University did not communicate his decision on the resignations submitted by the petitioners on 15.10.2020 till 27.01.2021 when he decided to reject their request. As per Rule 100 extracted above, an employee can resign from services by giving three months notice. Three months notice period had expired on 15.01.2020 but the Vice Chancellor sat tight over the matter till directions were issued to him to take a decision. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after expiry of the period of three months from the notice, the resignation would be deemed to have been accepted as decision of refusal had not been communicated to the petitioners.

¶24

The said submission finds substance. From the reading of

¶25

Regulation 100 though it appears that the resignation cannot be claimed as a matter of right but for the peculiar facts of the case that the reason of the resignation in the present case is the selection of the petitioners in a prestigious institution like AIIMS, they cannot be restrained from making progress in their career on the premise that, in case, they are allowed to be releived from the institution, the number of teaching faculty would fall than the prescribed standard.

¶26

The said reason for refusal to accept the resignation of the petitioners in the order dated 27.1.2021 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University, therefore, is found irrelevant.

¶27

Taking into consideration of the regulations governing services of the petitioners and the fact that the petitioners had appeared in the interview for the post of Associate Professor after getting No-Objection Certificate from the respondent and that they have submitted resignation well in time, i.e. soon after their selection on the posts of Associate Professor in AIIMS, this Court does not find any merit in the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 27.01.2021 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for accepting their resignation.

¶28

Further, an employee who seeks to resign from service foregoes all benefits of services. The resignation submitted by the petitioners shall be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of period of three months from the date of notice as decision for refusal has not been made nor communicated. The only leeway given to the University authority in the regulations is that the faculty member who tenders his resignation may be directed to continue to work for three months which is the notice period. The resignation cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not work after one month of tendering their resignations. The request cannot be declined as no disciplinary proceedings are either initiated or completed against the petitioners.

¶29

The decision of the Vice Chancellor is, therefore, set aside. A direction is issued to the respondent No.1 i.e. Vice Chancellor, Saifai, Etawah, U.P. to relieve the petitioners forthwith and provide necessary experience certificates and ancillary papers enabling them to join in AIIMS, Deoghar.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed .

¶31

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Himanshu

Manish Raj and Another v. Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Raj and Another v. Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Chandra Sharma Vs U.P. Jal Nigam and 5 Others

Jaydrath Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rama Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kusum Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others