1. The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab University. He was appointed as a Lecturer in Geography in April 1963. He is, however, aggrieved by the fact that in July 1970 his service was terminated by paying him three months' salary In lieu of notice. The representation grade by the petitioner to the Syndicate of the University failed. The petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that the termination was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is not a case of simple termination in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service. According to him it has a background. He asserts that on account of professional jealousies two inquiries were initiated against the petitioner mall fide on charges of misconduct. But the charges could not be proved. Nevertheless, the petitioner's services were terminated before the inquiry was concluded as the authorities did not want his presence on the faculty.
3. The learned counsel for the University, however, contends that none of the petitioner's rights under the terms of his service having been violated he cannot maintain this petition. He concedes that the charges against the petitioner could not be established. According to him the inquiry could not in fact be concluded as the relevant files disappeared mysteriously while the inquiries were still pending. He further asserts that although the petitioner stood to gain by the disappearance of the files, the University authorities did not draw any inference therefrom adverse to the petitioner.
4. Instead they decided to put an end to the scandalous inquiries by terminating the petitioner's service without attaching any stigma to his career. Therefore, the learned counsel for the University contends, the petitioner cannot be said to be legally aggrieved.
5. The petitioner, however, does not seem to be satisfied with the fact that he was honourably removed from service. Ire wants to vindicate his honour by getting himself re-instated through the process of the Court.
6. But it is to be noted that the relationship between the University and they petitioner being that of a master and servant based on a contract, the dispute between them is not fit for adjudication by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Even a civil suit cannot result, in these circumstances, in a decree re-instating the petitioner. If termination of the service is not justified in law he can at the most claim damages. It has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in MarghubSiddiqi v. Hamid Ahmad Khan and 2 others (1974SCMR519), that contracts for personal service cannot be specially enforced. It may also be pointed out here that the position of a University employee is not the same as that of a public serva7it under the 1952-Contitution, who enjoyed Constitutional protection in respect of his tenure and emoluments.
7. For the reasons given above I am of the opinion that this writ petition is not competent. It is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioner's service was terminated honourably as asserted by the learned counsel for the University.
8. The parties are left to bear their own costs.