Allahabad HC Upholds Reinstatement of College Employees, Finds Selection by Officiating Principal Valid

Allahabad High Court: In a significant ruling concerning the validity of appointments made during the suspension of a regular Principal , a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed appeals filed by the Committee of Management of Sri Durga Ji Postgraduate College, Azamgarh, upholding a Single Judge's order to reinstate four Class-III employees whose services were terminated. The court held that a selection conducted by a committee including an authorized Officiating Principal is valid, particularly when the regular Principal is under suspension and cannot participate.

The bench, comprising Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra , J. and Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi , J. , heard four connected appeals ( Special Appeal Defective Nos. 791, 790, 803 of 2023 and 84 of 2024 ) arising from writ petitions filed by Ambrish Kumar Gond , Satendra Kumar Singh, Bharat Singh , and Ravindra , who were appointed to Class-III posts (Lab Assistant, Routine Clerk, Library Clerk) in the college in 2004.

Background of the Dispute

The appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2004 by the then Manager and Officiating Principal , Dr. Phool Chandra Singh . A selection committee was constituted, and the four employees were duly appointed. Their appointments received approval from the Regional Higher Education Officer, Varanasi, on November 25, 2004, and they commenced work and received salaries.

Trouble arose in 2008 after an Authorized Controller was appointed to the institution. Doubts were raised regarding the legality of the appointments, primarily on the ground that the regular Principal had not participated in the selection process and that the Officiating Principal lacked the authority to do so. This led the Director, Higher Education, U.P., to direct the cancellation of these appointments in March 2009. Consequently, the Principal suspended salary payments in June 2010, and the Authorized Controller formally cancelled the appointments on June 18, 2010.

Protracted Legal Battle

The aggrieved employees challenged the cancellation orders before the High Court. Their initial writ petitions were dismissed, but these orders were later set aside by a Division Bench in 2013, which remitted the matters back to the Single Judge for fresh consideration, noting that the facts had not been correctly appreciated.

Upon fresh consideration, the Single Judge, vide orders dated April 25, 2023, and May 22, 2023, allowed the writ petitions. The Single Judge found that the cancellation of appointments was not based on a proper enquiry and that the employees were denied an opportunity of hearing. The employees were thus held entitled to reinstatement and continuity in service, though back wages for the period they had not worked (2010-2023) were denied.

The Committee of Management filed appeals against the reinstatement orders, while two employees ( Ambrish Kumar Gond and Ravindra ) filed an appeal challenging the denial of back wages.

High Court's Reasoning

The Division Bench meticulously examined the core objection regarding the validity of the selection committee. It was undisputed that the regular Principal , Dr. Durga Prasad Dwivedi , was under suspension by the Committee of Management at the time of the appointments in 2004. The court noted that previous litigation, including a Division Bench order dated January 3, 2005, had upheld the validity of his suspension, holding that the Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to set it aside.

The court emphatically stated: "A suspended Principal cannot take part in the recruitment proceedings, nor can he be expected to form part of the selection committee." The objection raised by the management and educational authorities on this ground was therefore found to be "bereft of merits."

Further, the court observed that Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was duly authorized to officiate as Principal , and his officiation was unchallenged. As the statutes require the Principal to be part of the selection committee, the Officiating Principal was legally entitled to participate when the regular incumbent was suspended.

The bench fully endorsed the Single Judge's finding that the cancellation orders were impermissible, highlighting the lack of any proper enquiry report or opportunity of hearing afforded to the employees. The court stated: "The services of Class-III employees, who were duly appointed and approved by the educational authorities, could not have been set aside, merely on a misconceived apprehension that selection committee was incompetent."

Back Wages Denied, Continuity Granted

Regarding the claim for back wages for the period from 2010 to 2023 during which the employees did not work, the court, while acknowledging that the employees were not at fault for being kept out of service, upheld the Single Judge's decision. The court found that denying back wages for the non-worked period was neither illegal nor arbitrary in the facts of the case. However, the employees were held entitled to continuity in service, and their salary would be notionally fixed by granting them the benefit of uninterrupted continuance since their appointment in 2004, excluding back wages for the disputed period.

Decision

Consequently, the Special Appeals filed by the Committee of Management were dismissed, confirming the reinstatement and continuity in service for the four employees. The Special Appeal filed by Ambrish Kumar Gond and Ravindra regarding back wages was disposed of with the direction for continuity, notional salary fixation, and denial of back wages for the period 2010-2023. The court directed the authorities to ensure the four employees are allowed to resume duties forthwith and are paid salary in terms of the judgment.

The judgment clarifies that administrative actions taken during the valid suspension of a regular officeholder by an authorized officiating incumbent, particularly concerning recruitment processes, are legally sound, and appointments arising from such processes cannot be arbitrarily cancelled without due process.