The court conducted a thorough legal analysis regarding the termination of a university professor’s services, diving into the intricacies of the case. The decision sheds light on the complexities involved in such matters and sets a significant precedent for similar situations in the future.
Facts
- The respondent-University was established in 2001 and included in the List of Universities eligible for Central Government assistance under the UGC Act in 2003.
- The University framed Statutes in 2002 including the Faculty of Social Science with Political Science as a Department.
- The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the termination of the appellant’s services by the University, stating no illegality or infirmity in the decision.
- The appellant applied and was selected as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the respondent-University.
- He was issued an appointment letter in December 2004 with a grade pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500.
- The Registrar of the University informed him in July 2006 that his services would be terminated in March 2007 as his post was for the Tenth Plan and would expire by then.
- The appellant received a communication in March 2007 that his services were no longer required as his post was abolished.
- The appellant had requested for the Ph.D. incentive, annual increment, and other benefits in his letter to the Vice Chancellor, but his post was still abolished.
- The High Court listed his Writ Petition in November 2007 and directed for written arguments to be filed.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Issue
- The issue in this appeal pertains to the legality of the termination of the appellant’s services.
- It questions whether the termination was in accordance with the law or not.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- The Expert Committee initially submitted an adverse recommendation but later a detailed report was submitted recommending the reinstatement of the appellant.
- Appellant was wrongfully terminated as Assistant Professor by the respondent-University.
- Appellant’s services were continued even under the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
- Expert Committee deemed the termination of the appellant as ‘perverse and incorrect’.
- The appellant protested against an unjustified deduction from his salary which led to the termination of his services.
- The UGC and the second Expert Committee recommended the reinstatement of the appellant.
- The termination of the appellant on the lapse of the Tenth Plan was illegal as the University needed the same post even under the Eleventh Plan.
- Documents obtained under the RTI Act indicated that all teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan were made permanent with effect from their appointment dates.
- The University admitted that there was no contractual basis for the appellant’s appointment.
- The University sought funds under the Eleventh Plan even after abolishing the Department of Political Science and Philosophy, indicating the necessity for the appellant’s post.
- The Vice Chancellor acknowledged the possibility of absorbing teachers from abolished departments into other departments.
- All appointees under the Tenth Plan were made permanent except the appellant.
- The respondent-UGC submitted that the termination of the services of the appellant was considered ‘perverse and incorrect’ by the second Expert Committee.
- The appellant was recommended to be reinstated as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science or absorbed in any other department or faculty if the said department had been abolished.
- The respondent-University contended that the appointment of the appellant was under a scheme sanctioned by the UGC during the Tenth Five Year Plan, which ended on 31st March, 2007.
- The termination of the appellant’s services was deemed appropriate as the post held by the appellant was abolished, and his services were no longer required by the University.
- The appointment of the appellant was not on a permanent basis but under the Tenth Plan, as specified in the appointment letter issued on 4th December, 2004 stating the continuation depending on performance and post availability.
- Due to the conclusion of the Tenth Plan on 31st March, 2007, the post held by the appellant ceased to exist, justifying the termination of his services.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The Expert Committee recommended that the services of Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi as Assistant Professor be continued as it was incorrect to terminate his services.
- The appointment of Dr. Tripathi was not on a contractual basis, and he was receiving annual increments.
- The University had the funds to pay grants for the post even after the completion of the Tenth Five Year Plan.
- The University had the power to abolish any department but not the post sanctioned under the Tenth Plan by the UGC.
- The UGC recommended that if the Department of Political Science is abolished, Dr. Tripathi should be absorbed in another department/faculty of the University.
- There was contradiction in the University’s communication regarding the abolition of Dr. Tripathi’s post and the continuation of the Department of Political Science.
- The UGC’s recommendation contradicted the earlier decision of UGC dated 23 December 2011, rejecting Dr. Tripathi’s representation.
- The UGC constituted an Expert Committee to re-examine Dr. Tripathi’s case following a direction from the Court.
- No objection raised to the UGC recommendation and University’s order
- Termination of appellant’s services found to be illegal and not in accordance with the law
Decision
- The appellant is entitled to notional fixation of salary and other benefits if similarly situated individuals have been granted such benefits by the University.
- The respondent-University is directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science.
- The appellant will be granted continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits.
- No disbursement of salary will be given for the period from March 31, 2007, till the date of reinstatement due to ‘no work, no pay’ principle.
- Pending interlocutory applications have been disposed of.
- The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Case Title: SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDI UNI&ANR (2021 INSC 692)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006255-006255 / 2021
