SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 450

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
K. Ragupathi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3913 of 2022, SLP (C) No. 9214 of 2022, Diary No. 17212 of 2020
Decided On : 12-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondents: Vibhav Mishra, Ekansh Bansal, Shashwat Goel.

IMPORTANT POINT
Termination – Mere nomenclature do not make regular appointment contractual appointment.

Headnote:

Service Law – Termination – From post of Senior Scientific Officer – For every vacant post, University publishes an open advertisement inviting applications from all interested candidates – Appointments are made only after candidates are selected by Selection Committee – Though nomenclature given to appointment is contractual, candidates are required to undergo entire selection process – For permanency in tenure, terms and conditions of appointment are identical to those of regularly appointed candidates – Appellant was appointed after he underwent entire selection process – Even as per University, though appointment shows that it is on a contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular basis – Appellant’s services could not have been terminated without following principles of natural justice – Present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground – Impugned order set aside and appellant directed to be reinstated with continuity in service – However, appellant would not be entitled to any back wages. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 16 and 17)

Facts of the case:

Appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23rd May 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition being Writ-A No. 51962 of 2014 filed by the appellant, thereby challenging communication of the respondent No.3 Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh dated 12th August 2014 informing the appellant that his services stands discontinued.

Findings of Court:

Annual Performance Assessment Report (“APAR”) of the appellant during the period 2012-13 show his performance to be outstanding. Every other parameter in his APAR is shown as excellent. With regard to his integrity, it is mentioned that there is nothing against the appellant adversely reflecting his integrity. It is further stated in his APAR that he enjoys a good reputation and his integrity is good.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant-K. Ragupathi has approached this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23rd May 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition being Writ Appeal No. 51962 of 2014 filed by the appellant, thereby challenging the communication of the respondent No. 3 Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “said University”) dated 12th August 2014 informing the appellant that his services stands discontinued.

4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

    In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 3, the appellant had applied to the post of Senior Scientific Officer. After undergoing due selection process, the appellant came to be selected and appointed as Senior Scientific Officer on contractual basis in the said University vide its order dated 3rd August 2011. The said appointment was initially for a period of two years. The appellant’s services were extended for another period of one year by the said University vide its order dated 7th August 2013. However, vide communication of the said University dated 12th August 2014, the appellant was informed that the period of his contractual appointment had expired on 11th August 2014 and he was directed to complete the formalities regarding relieving from the service. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing writ petition being Writ Appeal No. 51962 of 2014. Vide the impugned order dated 23rd May 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

5. We have heard the appellant-in-person and Shri Vibhav Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. The appellant has submitted that he was appointed after following the due selection process, and as such, his services could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry. He further submitted that though vide communication of the said University dated 12th August 2014, the appellant has been relieved, in effect it would amount to punitive termination. He further submitted that the aforesaid communication is passed in a mala-fide manner.

7. Shri Mishra, on the contrary, submitted that the appellant’s appointment was purely contractual, and as such, the appellant did not have any right to continue in service after the expiry of the contractual period. He therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in the impugned order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

8. Shri Mishra further submitted that since the appellant was indulging into certain activities, which were detrimental to the interest of the said University, it was found that the appellant’s continuation in service was not in the interest of the said University.

9. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said University before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad:

    “5. That Clause (6) of the Amendment Act of 2008 substituted Section 29(1) of the Gautam Budh University Act, 2002. The amended Section 29(1) reads as under:

    “(1) Every employee in the first instance shall be appointed under a written contract, which shall be lodged by the University and the copy of which shall be furnished to the employee concerned.”

    6. That consequent to the aforesaid amendment made by the State of U.P. in the statute of the University, it is obligatory on the University to initially appoint employees only on contractual basis.

    7. That it is also necessary to clarify at this stage that even though the University is appointing its employees on contractual basis, the method of selection and thereafter appointment of these employees is the same as that which is followed in the case of regular appointment of its employees.

    8. That for every post which is vacant and whic


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top