Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Maitreyee Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
The Tripura University & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2024 [Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 16944 of 2022]
Decided on : 22-08-2024
Service Law – Confirmation – Post of Assistant Professor in Law – Appellant was adjusted against Unreserved lien vacancy – It would not be correct to assume that because one of unreserved vacancies was a lien vacancy many eligible candidates would not have applied – One vacancy advertised being a regular vacancy, it is fair to assume that interested candidates would have definitely applied and as such no prejudice has been caused to any person – All candidates were competing against regular vacancy also – Liberty reserved in appointment order cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner – There was no case made out by University to deny Appellant, her confirmation – Appellant went through normal process of selection – Employment notice set out that appointments made to the posts against LIEN vacancies are likely to be regularized subject to vacation of lien and satisfactory performance – Discretion vested in Executive Council should be exercised in a fair and non arbitrary manner – No prejudice to public interest could have been caused as eligible candidates desiring appointment would have anyway applied to compete for regular slot – Legitimate expectation was not outweighed by any overriding public interest – Respondent-University directed to place Appellant’s case for confirmation before Executive Council. (Paras 24, 25, 26, 27, 34 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Question that arises for consideration is whether Respondent-University was justified in resolving on 13.12.2018 at 32nd Meeting in Agenda No.18/32/2018, that Appellant was not to be confirmed and that post was to be readvertised? If not, further question would be as to what relief should the Appellant be entitled to?
Findings of Court:
Respondent-University to place Appellant’s case for confirmation before Executive Council and that Executive Council and Respondent-University shall pass appropriate resolution/order(s), in accordance with findings given in present judgment. Said exercise is to be carried out within four weeks’ time. Appellant should also be given all consequential benefits.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala dated 20.06.2022 in W.A. No. 5 of 2020. By virtue of the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2019 dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant.
Brief facts:
3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra was working as an Associate Professor in Law in the Respondent-University. On 27.11.2015, the Executive Council of the Respondent-University granted a lien for one year to Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra to enable him to join the post of Associate Professor in Law in Sikkim University. On 02.12.2015, Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra joined Sikkim University.
4. On 05.05.2016, the Respondent-University issued an advertisement through an employment notification for various posts by inviting applications from suitable candidates. In the Department of Law, for the post of Assistant Professor, three vacancies were advertised. One was an unreserved regular vacancy. One was a lien vacancy in the Open category and one was a lien vacancy for the OBC candidates. The pay-scale was Rs.15600-39100 and the Grade Pay was Rs.6,000/-. In the note appended in Clause 19, it was mentioned “Appointment made to the posts against LIEN vacancy are likely to be regularized subject to vacation of lien and satisfactory performance.” Importantly, it was a common advertisement for all the three vacancies. We say this, at the outset, because both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that what was advertised was only a lien vacancy. No doubt, two of the vacancies were lien vacancies. However, there was one regular post also notified in the Unreserved category and hence it will be too much to assume that candidates would not have applied in full measure on the premise that only lien vacancies were advertised.
5. On 05.09.2016, pursuant to the Appellant’s application for the post of Assistant Professor in Law in the Unreserved category (UR), she was asked to appear before the Selection Committee. On 09.09.2016, a list of shortlisted candidates called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor along with the date and time for the interview was published. Insofar as the post of Assistant Professor (Law) was concerned, the time fixed was 12.30 PM on 21.09.2016 and about 16 candidates including the Appellant and one Sri. Brij Mohan Pandey were called for the interview.
6. On 20.11.2016, the 26th Meeting of the Executive Council of the University was held and the Agenda for consideration of the panel and names of persons recommended by the concerned Selection Committee for various teaching posts was taken up and approved. Insofar as the Assistant Professor in Law was concerned, the following was mentioned.
| 4. | Assistant Professor in Law | 2-UR (1 lien Vacancy) | 21.09.2016 | 1. Brij Mohan Pandey |
| 2. Maitreyee Chakraborty | ||||
A note was appended below which reads as under:-
7. As would be clear, at Serial Number No.1 was Sri. Brij Mohan Pandey and he was taken against the regular vacancy. The Appellant was adjusted against the Unreserved lien vacancy. There was a clear stipulation that in case Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey did not accept the offer of appointment given to him against the regular/substantive vacancy, the post was to go to the Appellant who was at Serial No.2. It is another matter that Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey took up the appointment. However, this
Confirmation – Post of Assistant Professor in Law – Liberty reserved in appointment order cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner – Discretion vested in Executive Council should be exercised in a ....
Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to appointment; the state may issue new advertisements and change qualifications without legal obligation to fill prior vacancies.
Regular appointments have to be made in accordance with the rules and by giving wide publicity, considering all eligible candidates.
The Court emphasized the obligation of the authority to appoint the next selected candidate in case of a vacancy and deemed the inclusion of the vacancy in the subsequent advertisement as illegal.
The continuous advertisement of a reserved post for a specified period without a response from reserved category candidates entitles the appointed candidate to de-reservation and service benefits as ....
In public employment, where a uniform selection process is conducted for regular posts, the arbitrary and unexplained classification of a qualified candidate for a contractual appointment, while othe....
Removal from service – A person appointed after undergoing a regular selection process and possessing relevant qualifications, cannot be abruptly removed from service.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
