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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11526

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, J
Sonal Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
D.P. Vipra College – Respondent
WPS No. 5399 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shivang Dubey
For the Respondents: B.P. Sharma, M.L. Sakat, Vikram Sharma

The termination or removal of a college teacher under the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, is invalid unless approved by the Executive Council of the University, as required by the College Code under Statute 28.

Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 - Statute 28, Clause 31.3 - Termination of service of teacher - Governing Body resolution not approved by Executive Council - Validity of termination.

(B) Principles of natural justice and service jurisprudence - Requirement of prior approval from University Executive Council for removal or dismissal of college teachers - Consequences of failure to obtain such approval.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, was suspended following a Governing Body meeting. Subsequently, the services were terminated pursuant to a resolution, despite university directives to maintain status quo. The college challenged university directions in previous litigation, which was eventually withdrawn. The current petition was filed seeking reinstatement and arrears of salary.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the termination order was illegal as it was passed in violation of Clause 31.3 of the College Code under Statute 28 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, which mandates prior approval of the Executive Council for such actions. The court rejected the college's contention regarding its autonomous status as the incident predated the grant of such status.

Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner's services without conforming to the approval requirements of the College Code is sustainable and whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Any resolution by the Governing Body for the removal or termination of a teacher under the College Code cannot be given effect unless formally approved by the Executive Council of the University. Actions taken in contravention of this statutory bar are invalid. Result : Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual sequence leading to the contested termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. parties' contentions regarding statutory compliance and maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. statutory necessity of executive council approval for service termination under the college code. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. entitlement to reinstatement and consequential benefits following illegal service termination. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

1. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner was employee of respondent No.1. He was appointed and working as Assistant Professor (Commerce). Respondent No.1/College is run and managed by Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner while in service, a complaint was made against him by respondent No.2, who was working at that time as Principal of respondent No.1-College. On complaint made by respondent No.2, a meeting of Governing Body was convened on 03.12.2018 and pursuant to the decision taken therein, petitioner was suspended and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Representatives of respondent No.3-University-cum-members of Governing Body have made complaint on 12.12.2008 before Kulpati of respondent No.3-University stating therein that there was violation of statutory rules in passing an order of suspension against petitioner. Three members Committee was constituted by Kulpati of respondent No.3-University and intimated to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 25.04.2019 and further observed to maintain status-quo with respect to services of petitioner till final outcome of enquiry. On 14.05.2019 Governing Body took decision to terminate services of petitioner with immediate effect and letter in this regard was issued on 15.05.2019 by respondent No.1 (Incharge - Principal). Petitioner submitted representation before Kulpati of respondent No.3-University against letter of termination dated 15.05.2019 pleading therein that order of termination is in serious violation of mandatory provisions. Respondent No.3-University on 03.10.2019 issued letter to respondent No.1-College directing to maintain status-quo with respect to the services of petitioner. Against letter dated 03.10.2019, respondent No.1- College and respondent No.2/complainant has filed writ petition bearing WPS No.10347 of 2019, which was partly allowed and disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2022 directing University to constitute Tribunal for deciding the appeal of respondent No.2 therein (petitioner herein). Against the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in WPS No.10347 of 2019, petitioner herein has filed Writ Appeal No.29 of 2023 and the said order was also assailed by the College and complainant i.e. petitioners in WPS No.10347 of 2019 by filing Writ Appeal No.39 of 2023 as also by University in Writ Appeal No.203 of 2023. All writ appeals were heard and disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2023 observing that there is no provision for constitution of such Tribunal and being so direction issued by learned Single Judge to be not in accordance with Chhattisgarh Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (In short “the Adhiniyam, 1973”). The writ appeal filed by Sonal Tiwari/appellant therein and (petitioner herein) and appeal filed by University were allowed, however, the writ appeal filed by College and complainant i.e. W.A. 39 of 2023 was dismissed and remitted back the case for its decision before the learned Single Judge.

2. When Writ Petition No.10347 of 2019 was taken up for hearing after remand, petitioner therein i.e. College and complainant (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) have filed an application for withdrawal of writ petition for the reasons mentioned that during the pendency of that writ petition, petitioner therein i.e. College was given “autonomous status”. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.04.2024. When petitioner herein was not reinstated in service eve

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