Judicial review applies to educational institutions discharging public duties, ensuring procedural fairness in employment decisions to uphold fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 02.11.2023 made in WP(MD)No.19133 of 2023 filed by the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner).

2.The writ petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste. He is a holder of B.E. Mechanical degree from National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli. He subsequently acquired MBA in Marketing at Bharathidasan Institute of Management, Tiruchirappalli (appellant herein) and Ph.D. (Marketing) degree from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli. When the appellant institution called for applications from eligible candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in December 2020, the writ petitioner applied in response thereto. By then, he had around 13 years of industrial experience and 12 years of teaching experience. He was then serving in Xavier Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship, Bangalore. An expert selection committee was constituted and interview was held on 28.01.2021. The writ petitioner was selected. The first appellant vide order dated 12.03.2021 offered the writ petitioner the faculty position of Assistant Professor. The writ petitioner accepted the offer and joined duty on 16.04.2021.

3.As per the appointment order, the writ petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years. His appointment was to be confirmed only on satisfactory completion of probation. It was further specified that during the probation period, the appointment may be terminated by either side by giving one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof. The writ petitioner's probation ended on 15.04.2023. His probation, however, was not declared and his appointment was not confirmed. Instead, on 07.07.2023, he was relieved permanently from his position. Instead of giving one month's notice pay, three months salary was credited to his account. In fact, the writ petitioner received two sets of communication terminating him from service. The writ petitioner tried to argue that the stand of the management was not fair. Since there was no response to his representation sent through e-mail, he filed W.P.(MD)No.19133 of 2023 challenging the termination order and seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. The management filed a detailed counter-affidavit controverting the assertions made by the writ petitioner as well as questioning the very maintainability of the writ petition.

4.The learned Single Judge framed the issues as follows:-

“(I) Whether this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the question of maintainability ?

(II) Whether the impugned termination order and consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2023 is a termination simpliciter during probation ?

(III) Whether the impugned termination order and consequential relieving order is vitiated by malafides ?

(IV) Whether the impugned termination order and consequential relieving order has been issued violating the statutes of BIM and principles of natural justice ?”

5.After an elaborate discussion, the learned Single Judge concluded that the writ petition was maintainable and that the management has passed a stigmatic order without complying with the principles of natural justice. It was further concluded that the termination order could have been issued only by the Board of Governors and not by the Director in his individual capacity. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

“53.In view of the same, this Court hereby quash the impugned order of termination and consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2023 on the ground of jurisdiction alone and thereafter, remand back the matter to the third respondent with the following directions:-

(i)The third respondent is directed to place the case of the writ petitioner before the Board of G