Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, SUMAN SHYAM, JJ.
Dibyajyoti Mahanta S/o Late Lakshmi Kanta Mahanta – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University and Others – Respondents
W.A. No. 35 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2024
Tenure Post - Appointment Conditions - [Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Act, 2005, Section 3 of Chapter V; Ordinance No. 7, Clause 2] - The court examined the provisions of the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Act, 2005 and the Ordinance No. 7 to determine the tenure of appointment for the post of Dean (Study Centre). It was held that the appointment letter clearly laid down a fixed term in office for the appellant, and the appellant was not entitled to continue in office beyond the fixed period prescribed in the appointment order.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, appointed as the Dean (Study Centre) of Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University, challenged a notice stating his retirement at the age of 60, despite his appointment for a fixed term of 5 years or till the age of 60, whichever is earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was appointed against a tenure post with a fixed term of office, and therefore, was not entitled to continue in office beyond the fixed period prescribed in the appointment order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had the right to continue in office beyond the age of 60 years, i.e. till completion of a fixed tenure of 5 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment letter clearly laid down a fixed term in office for the appellant, and the appellant was not entitled to continue in office beyond the fixed period prescribed in the appointment order.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was found to be devoid of any merit and was accordingly dismissed. The court also observed that there would be no recovery of salary and allowances paid to the appellant for serving in the post of Dean (Study Centre) during the period when interim orders were in force.
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-01-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8310/2022, instituted by the writ appellant, as petitioner, whereby the challenge made to the notice dated 29-11-2022 issued by the Registrar of Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University (hereinafter referred to as KKHSOU) i.e. the respondent No. 2, notifying the date of demitting office by the appellant/writ petitioner on completion of his tenure in the post of Dean (Study Center) of the university was rejected. The facts and circumstances of the case, giving rise to filing of the writ appeal, are briefly narrated herein-below.
2. KKHSOU (hereinafter referred to as the “University”) was established under the Krishna Kanta Handiqui State Open University Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005) inter-alia with the object to advance and disseminate learning and knowledge by a diversity of means including the use of any communication technology so as to provide opportunities for higher education to a larger section of population and to promote educational well being of the community in general. The Registrar of the University i.e. the respondent No. 2 had earlier issued advertisement notice No. R-2/2015 dated 29-06-2015 inviting applications for filling up a number of vacant posts including one post of Dean (Study Centre). The appellant, who was working as Assistant Professor in the Nagaon Girls College, Nagaon, at that point of time, had applied for the post of Dean (Study Centre) and was eventually selected. By the appointment order dated 06-10-2015, the appellant was appointed as the Dean of the University for a term of 05 years. Accordingly, the appellant served as Dean (Study Centre) from 03-11-2015 to 02-11-2020.
3. As the tenure of the appellant in the post of Dean (Study Centre) was coming to an end, on 05-09-2020, another advertisement notice, bearing No. R-3/2020, was issued by the University inviting fresh applications for the post of Dean (Study Centre). The said advertisement notice had clearly mentioned that the age of the applicant should not be more than 55 years on the date of application. However, the University reserved the right to relax the upper age limit in case of deserving candidates.
4. Responding to the advertisement dated 05-09-2020 the appellant had applied for the post of Dean (Study Centre) seeking a second term in office. After conclusion of the selection process, the Board of Management of the University, in its meeting held on 19-10-2020, had resolved to issue appointment order to the appellant, thus appointing him in the post of Dean (Study Centre). As per the resolution of the Board, the appointment letter was required to be issued as per the University Rules. Consequently, appointment letter dated 20-10-2020 was issued to the appellant laying down the terms and conditions of his appointment.
5. In the appointment order dated 20-10-2020, in the column “nature of post” it was mentioned that “the term of the office of the Dean (Study Centre) will be of 05 years as per first statute of the University (Section 3 of Chapter V) or till attainment of 60 years, whichever is earlier.” In Clause 6 of the appointment order dated 20-10-2020 pertaining to service conditions, it was further mentioned that “on confirmation after the period of probation and subject to satisfactory service thereafter, you will be retained in the services of the University for a term period of 05 (five) years or up-to the age of 60 (sixty) years, whichever is earlier. You will be required to execute a service agreement to this effect.”
6. Pursuant to the appointment order dated 20-10-2020, the appellant joined in the post of Dean (Study Centre) on 03-11-2020 so as to serve the probation period. On successful completion of the probation period, the appellant was retained in the post of Dean (Study Centre) so as to complete his tenure.
7. While serving as Dean
Existing pension at the rate of Central University be stopped - petitioner had been substantively appointed in the post of the Registrar of Tripura University. Hence, the service rendered by the peti....
The court established that a Senior Research Officer is classified as a Teacher under the university's statutes, entitled to benefits of extended service age.
The age of superannuation for university directors is governed by AICTE regulations, which allow for retirement at 65 years, and any university resolution attempting to reduce this age must comply wi....
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
Person appointed as visiting professor on honorary basis, could not claim the financial benefits of the salaried employee of the University as a Lecturer or other teachers of the University.
Retirement from service – Pensionery Benefit of – Court inclined to order that until fresh regular appointment is made to fill up post of Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of Wakf Board writ petition....
The Chancellor's authority allows for resolving seniority disputes in academia, despite procedural lapses, with seniority determined primarily by age.
Seniority in academic appointments must be determined by continuous service length under applicable statutes, rather than solely on the date of eligibility for promotion.
Point of Law : Gauhati University also cannot be said to be blameless in its conduct towards the appellant in the matter of appointment and release.
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
