Back
2025 Supreme(Chh) 438
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
Subhash Singh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education Ministry of Education 127-C, Shastri Bhawan New Delhi - Respondent
WPS No. 8502 of 2022
Decided On : 23-07-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava and Mr. Udit Khatri, Advocates
Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act protects only employees in service before its enactment, and reinstatement cannot be claimed if already terminated, regardless of subsequent exoneration in criminal matters.
Headnote:(A) Central Universities Act, 2009 - Section 4(d) - Reinstatement of employee - Petitioner claims violation of rights under Article 21 and challenges Section 4(d) of the Act, which he argues is unconstitutional and against principles of natural justice. Court affirms that Section 4(d) protects only those in service at the commencement of the Act, which does not include the petitioner who was removed before this. Attempts to connect previous criminal appeal judgments to reinstatement were found insufficient as they do not override statutory provisions. (Paras 2, 6, 12, 20, 26, 34)
(B) Employment Law - Termination and Reinstatement - The provisions of employment acts must be respected, and mere exoneration in a criminal trial does not entitle reinstatement unless the original termination is found to be illegal or arbitrary. The court noted that no compelling evidence was presented to indicate the unconstitutionality of the provisions allowing for dismissal of services in specific scenarios. (Para 36)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's employment history and legal framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against section 4(d) and denial of reinstatement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of legislative intent and constitutional validity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. writ petition dismissal based on lack of merit. (Para 37) |
ORDER :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The petition as filed by the petitioner discloses that the respondent No.2 Guru Ghasidas Central University (hereinafter 'GGU') is not considering the case of the petitioner for reinstatement while stating that as per Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009 (in short Act, 2009’), the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service, as such the petitioner is also challenging Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 while praying following reliefs :-
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Section 4 (d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009;
OR
Order the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner in light Ordinance 89 of B.H.U. (Non-teaching employees) & if any employee terminated working under the erstwhile GGU before enactment of the Central Universities Act, 2009 is exonerated by a competent court, he shall be considered for reinstatement in GGU by a competent committee;
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the Petitioner for the purpose of reinstatement since he has been exonerated by all criminal charges by this Hon'ble Court;
c) pass any other order(s) that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of an erstwhile Guru Ghasidas University as he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk way back on 13.05.1996. A criminal case was filed against the petitioner with an allegation that on 03.07.2005, at about 9:30 p.m., the petitioner, along with 9-10 other unknown persons entered into house of the complainants and assaulted them, due to which complainants sustained injuries on their bodies and they had also looted Mangalsutra of one of the complainant. Due to the criminal prosecution, based on First Information Report, firstly vide order dated 02.01.2007, the petitioner was suspended by the erstwhile Guru Ghasidas University and thereafter, when the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 19.02.2007, by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 111/2006 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 450, 307/149 and 323/149 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).
3. The petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2007 was removed from services under Rule 31 of the University Statutes read with Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 ( in short ‘Rules, 1966’). Against his conviction, the petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2007. In the meanwhile, the Guru Ghasidas University has been declared as Guru Gasidas Central University by the Central Government and the erstwhile State University came to an end. After becoming Central University, the Guru Ghasidas Cental University came under the Central Universities Act, 2009. The service and other benefits of the employees were governed under the Central Universities Act, 2009.
4. Section 4(d) of the Act, 2009 deals with regarding employment of earlier employees of Guru Ghashidas University. Section 4 of the Act, 2009 is reproduced below for easy reference:-
“4. Effect of establishment of Universities.- On and from the dated of commencement of this Act,-
(a) any reference to Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Doctor Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya or Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, in any
