Public authorities must honor legitimate expectations arising from their representations, and arbitrary denial of confirmation in service violates principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Employment Law - The Appellant, an Assistant Professor, challenged the denial of confirmation in service against a lien vacancy after the lien was vacated. The court found that the University failed to provide justifiable reasons for not confirming the Appellant despite satisfactory performance and a legitimate expectation of regularization. (Paras 24, 25, 30, 36)

(B) Legitimate Expectation - The court emphasized that public authorities must honor their promises and past practices, and the Appellant had a legitimate expectation of confirmation after the lien was vacated. (Paras 32, 34)

(C) Discretion of Executive Council - The court ruled that the discretion exercised by the University was arbitrary and unreasonable, lacking justification for denying confirmation. (Paras 27, 36)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant was appointed against a lien vacancy and worked for over seven years without adverse performance. The lien was vacated, yet her confirmation was denied, leading to her appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the University acted arbitrarily in denying confirmation and ordered the Appellant's case for confirmation to be reconsidered.

Issues: The main issues were whether the University was justified in not confirming the Appellant and whether the decision to readvertise the post was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the University’s reasoning was flawed, as the Appellant had undergone a proper selection process and had a legitimate expectation of confirmation.

Result: Appeal allowed.

J U D G M E N T

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala dated 20.06.2022 in W.A. No. 5 of 2020. By virtue of the said judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2019 dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant.

Brief facts:

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra was working as an Associate Professor in Law in the Respondent-University. On 27.11.2015, the Executive Council of the Respondent-University granted a lien for one year to Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra to enable him to join the post of Associate Professor in Law in Sikkim University. On 02.12.2015, Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra joined Sikkim University.

4. On 05.05.2016, the Respondent-University issued an advertisement through an employment notification for various posts by inviting applications from suitable candidates. In the Department of Law, for the post of Assistant Professor, three vacancies were advertised. One was an unreserved regular vacancy. One was a lien vacancy in the Open category and one was a lien vacancy for the OBC candidates. The pay-scale was Rs.15600-39100 and the Grade Pay was Rs.6,000/-. In the note appended in Clause 19, it was mentioned “Appointment made to the posts against LIEN vacancy are likely to be regularized subject to vacation of lien and satisfactory performance.” Importantly, it was a common advertisement for all the three vacancies.

We say this, at the outset, because both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that what was advertised was only a lien vacancy. No doubt, two of the vacancies were lien vacancies. However, there was one regular post also notified in the Unreserved category and hence it will be too much to assume that candidates would not have applied in full measure on the premise that only lien vacancies were advertised.

5. On 05.09.2016, pursuant to the Appellant’s application for the post of Assistant Professor in Law in the Unreserved category (UR), she was asked to appear before the Selection Committee. On 09.09.2016, a list of shortlisted candidates called for interview for the post of Assistant Professor along with the date and time for the interview was published. Insofar as the post of Assistant Professor (Law) was concerned, the time fixed was 12.30 PM on 21.09.2016 and about 16 candidates including the Appellant and one Sri. Brij Mohan Pandey were called for the interview.

6. On 20.11.2016, the 26th Meeting of the Executive Council of the University was held and the Agenda for consideration of the panel and names of persons recommended by the concerned Selection Committee for various teaching posts was taken up and approved. Insofar as the Assistant Professor in Law was concerned, the following was mentioned.

4. Assistant	Professor in Law	2-UR (1 lien Vacancy)	21.09.2016	1. Brij Mohan Pandey
				2. Maitreyee Chakraborty

A note was appended below which reads as under:- “N.B. Candidate at Serial No 2 against the post of Assistant Professor in Law shall be given the offer of appointment against Lien Vacancy. In case the candidate at Serial No 1 does not accept the offer of appointment given to him against regular/ substantive vacancy, the post shall go to the candidate at Serial No 2 and Candidate at Serial No 3 on the approved panel shall be given the offer of appointment against the Lien Vacancy.”

7. As would be clear, at Serial Number No.1 was Sri. Brij Mohan Pandey and he was taken against the regular vacancy. The Appellant was adjusted against the Unreserved lien vacancy. There was a clear stipulation that in case Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey did not accept the offer of appointment given to him against the regular/substantive vacancy, the post was to go to the Appellant who was at Serial No.2. It is another matter that Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey took up the appointment. However, this is significant becaus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7962

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAMAITREYEE CHAKRABORTY – AppellantVersusTHE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY – RespondentC.A. No.-009730-009730 - 2024

Public authorities must honor legitimate expectations arising from their representations, and arbitrary denial of confirmation in service violates principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MAITREYEE CHAKRABORTY – Appellant
Versus
THE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY – Respondent
C.A. No.-009730-009730 - 2024