The court held that the termination of employees for strike participation, without following due process or respecting binding agreements protecting their rights, violated constitutional protections and mandates of equitable treatment.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 23-12-2025

Re: CWJC No. 18289 of 2015 .

Heard the parties

2. The petitioners in the present writ application has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 19.09.2015 issued on the direction of the Principal, Magadh Mahila College, Patna University, Patna, under the signature of Head Clerk of the College, whereby and where under the petitioners services have been terminated in purported compliance of alleged telephonic instructions of the Vice- Chancellor, for having participated in the strike of the employees union during the period 10.08.2015 to 09.09.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the office order dated 19.09.2015 (Annexure-18), issued under the signature of the Head Clerk, Magadh Mahila College, Patna University, Patna, allegedly on the direction of the Principal, whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated on the purported ground that they had participated in the employees’ union strike during the period 10.08.2015 to 09.09.2015, allegedly in compliance of telephonic instructions of the Vice-Chancellor.

4. It is submitted that the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary, without jurisdiction, stigmatic in nature and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the same has been issued in complete disregard of the binding agreement dated 08.09.2015, duly approved by the Vice- Chancellor on 09.09.2015 (Annexure-13), which categorically stipulated that there shall be no victimization of any employee for participation in the said strike period. Learned counsel submits that while the strike was called off pursuant to the said settlement and all employees were required to be treated uniformly, the petitioners alone have been singled out for hostile discrimination, whereas other similarly situated ad-hoc/daily wage employees, including those junior to the petitioners, have been allowed to continue in service.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were engaged between 1995 and 1997 against sanctioned vacant Class-III and Class-IV posts after a due process of selection conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee comprising the Principal, Heads of Departments and the Bursar, pursuant to approval granted by the Vice-Chancellor vide order dated 23.11.1995. The petitioners joined on different dates, particulars whereof are detailed in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, and copies of their joining reports have been brought on record as Annexure-2 (Series). Since their initial engagement, the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties on perennial posts without any complaint whatsoever.

6. It is contended that considering the long and continuous service rendered by the petitioners on sanctioned posts, the Senate Committee for Absorption, constituted by the Patna University, after extensive deliberations in as many as twelve meetings, recommended the absorption/regularization of employees like the petitioners who had been appointed on daily wages against sanctioned vacant posts upto 31.12.2000 and were continuing in service. The names of the petitioners find place in the Committee’s report dated 05.11.2003 (Annexure-3), and the Vice-Chancellor himself was the Member-cum-Convenor of the said Committee. Learned counsel submits that despite such recommendation, the petitioners were arbitrarily denied regularization, whereas several other employees