The relationship between employees and a private unaided educational institution is governed by ordinary contract law, not public employment principles, thus no lien on the post can be claimed after accepting a new role.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the findings on points/issues (c)/(iii) and (d)/(iv) of the impugned judgment, dated 10.08.2021, Annexure P-1, passed by the District Judge- cum-Educational Tribunal, Gurugram, whereby respondent no.2 has been reinstated as Professor in the petitioner-Institute with full back wages.

Facts in brief

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:

2.1. The petitioner/Management Development Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The second respondent was offered appointment as Professor of Marketing in the Institute vide letter dated 01.03.2000, Annexure P-4, and joined as such. As per the terms, he was appointed on whole time basis subject to probation period of two years. On confirmation, his tenure was to continue until attaining the age of superannuation, which was initially sixty years and later raised to sixty five years. The appointment was in the pay scale of 18400-500-22400. The appointment letter clearly stipulates that in all matters, his service will be governed by the MDI Staff Regulations, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') and other rules in force from time to time. He claims to have successfully discharged duties as Professor; his performance was appreciated by the Board of Governors of the Institute also.

2.2. The Institute implemented its HR Policy and Service Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2009 Rules'), Annexure P-6, with effect from 01.01.2010.

2.3 Later, the Institute advertised post of its Director on 07.06.2011, inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The second respondent applied for the same. Based on the recommendations of a Search Committee, the Board of Governors of the Institute offered the post of Director to him, vide letter dated 17.01.2012, Annexure P-7. The offer of appointment as Director was for five years, effective from the date of taking over the charge and was terminable on three months' notice from either side.

2.4. The second respondent accepted the offer and joined as Director of the Institute on 17.01.2012. It is claimed by him that apart from performing the duties as Director, he continued teaching as a Professor of Marketing also. That is the reason, in the Information Brochure released by the Institute in 2013, 2014 and 2015, the second respondent was shown as Professor of Marketing, in addition to holding the position of Director. Besides, in communications to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which is the regulatory body for the Institute, the petitioner was shown to be Professor.

2.5 All of a sudden, on 28.10.2014, it was conveyed to the second respondent, vide Annexure P-9, that the Board of Governors has decided to terminate his service/cease his appointment as Director with effect from the said date.

2.6. When the second respondent claimed to be still working as Professor in the Institute despite termination as Director, a communication dated 15.12.2014, Annexure P-11, was sent to him by the Institute informing that he ceased to be Director with effect from 28.10.2014, and as per records, was not holding any lien on the post of Professor. An amount of 1,00,50,040 was remitted to his Bank account towards terminal benefits and other dues on 16.12.2014.

2.7. In these circumstances, the second respondent challenged his termination order dated 28.10.2014 by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.7944 of 2014 before the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2015. He challenged the said order by filing a Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No.59 of 2015 before a Division Bench, and vide order dated 20.02.2015, the Court directed listing of the said writ petition before a learned Single Judge on 23.02.2015. However, the second respondent withdrew his petition from the Delhi High Court on 23.02.2015, and was granted liberty