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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 594

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Subhas Chandra Karmakar – Appellant
Versus
The Apex Professional University – Respondents
WP(C) 191 of 2021
Decided on : 10-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sunil Mow
For the Respondent: L Das

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of contractual compliance, including the submission of mandatory qualifications and adherence to prescribed dispute resolution processes, in employment disputes.

Headnote:

Termination - Employment Dispute - APU Act, 2012, Section 16(9) - Contractual Basis - NET Qualification Certificate - Unauthorized Absence - Natural Justice

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a lecturer at APU, was terminated from his employment due to unsatisfactory performance and unauthorized absence. The petitioner claimed that the termination did not comply with the principles of natural justice and that he had applied for leave through proper channels.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract, as he failed to comply with the requirement of submitting a NET qualification certificate and remained absent without authorization. The court also noted that the petitioner's actions, including writing threatening letters and bypassing the prescribed dispute resolution process, justified the termination.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the termination, compliance with natural justice principles, and the petitioner's adherence to the terms of the employment contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's termination was justified based on his failure to meet contractual obligations, including the submission of a mandatory qualification certificate and unauthorized absence. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed dispute resolution process.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, with the court directing the respondent to release the withheld salary of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Mili, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J. Zongluju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ in nature of certiorari and/or mandamus and/or any other writs, orders or directions.

3. This application has been filed challenging the order of termination, dated 22.12.2018, issued by the respondent No. 1/the Apex Professional University (APU in short).

4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a lecturer in English by profession with more than 23 years of teaching experience and also had held the post of a principle in two schools. He was appointed as lecturer in the Department of English in APU, Pasighat on 04.05.2018, vide its order dated APU/MC/RO/05/2018-283 on contractual basis for a period of 12 months from the date of joining, at a monthly salary of Rs. 14,400/-(subject to statutory and other deductions as applicable).

5. Consequently, on 22.12.2018, the petitioner received a termination letter from his service with immediate effect on the ground that the management was not satisfied with the performance of the petitioner. It is further mentioned that despite repeated efforts from the management to improve the petitioner’s performance, it did not yield the desire result and therefore, his service was terminated. But the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action taken against him, which is not in conformity with the provision under Section 16 sub-section 9 of the APU Act, 2012. The manner in which the petitioner’s service was terminated does not comply with the principles of natural justice.

6. The petitioner’s wife was hospitalized with Gallstone Pancreatitis since first week of November 2018 and accordingly, he applied for leave for 5 days which was duly granted to him but subsequently on 22.12.2018, he received the letter of termination and hence in reply to the termination letter, he written a letter to the Registrar, APU on 28.12.2018, pointing out a lot of anomalies and illegalities commonly practice in the University and also questioned its validity. He also wrote a letter to the University Grants Commission (UGC for short) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC for short) wherein the petitioner gave information about the violation of norms/rules/laws of UGC/Government of Arunachal Pradesh and Government of India by APU, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner on 01.01.2019, wrote a letter to the Registrar, APU suggesting to have some arrangements with him. But no arrangement was made by the University and he was also directed to vacate accommodation provided by the University on or before 26.12.2018 without paying the salary which was due to him. However, on 30.03.2019, the petitioner was informed vide official order No. 133/2019 that his belongings were removed and kept somewhere unknown to the petitioner.

7. In pursuant to his letter to UGC, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the Vice Chancellor of APU, Pasighat to respond to the letter given by the NHRC dated 08.02.2019. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor, APU replied to the show cause notice on 06.05.2019 denying all the allegations made by the petitioner against the University.

8. It is submitted by Mr. M. Mili, learned counsel for the petitioner that the terms and condition in the appointment letter, the contract of employment, manner/mode of termination and the University’s reply to the show cause notice of the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh are arbitrary, exploitative, unjust and unconstitutional because of which the petitioner and his family have to go through immeasurable miseries and hardships. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried to do his best for the betterment of the students as well as the teachers and also request the University authorities for buying textbooks as

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