State Govt Cannot Directly Cancel Appointments in Aided Colleges Without Hearing Employees; Must Follow Due Process: Allahabad High Court - 2025-09-16

State Lacks Power to Directly Cancel Appointments in Aided Colleges, Violates Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court

Allahabad | In a significant ruling on service law, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a series of termination orders affecting Class-III and IV employees of two government-aided colleges, holding that the State Government overstepped its authority by directly ordering the cancellation of their appointments. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice J.J. Munir, held that such a drastic action, taken without affording the employees an opportunity of hearing, is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.

The judgment was delivered in a batch of ten writ petitions, with Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others serving as the lead case. The court set aside the foundational Government Order of June 19, 2015, and all consequential termination orders, while granting liberty to the competent appointing authorities to conduct fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

---

Background of the Case

The petitioners were employees of two privately managed, grant-in-aid postgraduate colleges in Basti: the A.P.N. Post Graduate College and the Shiv Harsh Kisan Post Graduate College. Their appointments, made in 2014-2015, were abruptly terminated following a Government Order dated June 19, 2015.

This order stemmed from a complaint by a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) alleging irregularities, including nepotism and procedural flaws, in the recruitment process. The State Government constituted a two-member committee to conduct a "fact-finding inquiry." Based on this committee's report, the government issued a blanket order directing the termination of all recently appointed Class-III and IV employees in both institutions. Consequential orders were then mechanically issued by the Director of Higher Education and the colleges' Authorized Controllers.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Contentions:

- The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Ashok Khare, argued that the State Government lacked the jurisdiction under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, to interfere with individual appointments in affiliated colleges.

- They contended that the termination orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as neither the inquiry committee nor the State Government heard them before making an adverse decision.

- It was further argued that the government's omnibus order failed to segregate potentially "tainted" cases from "untainted" ones, unfairly penalizing all appointees collectively.

State's Defence:

- The State respondents argued that the inquiry revealed serious irregularities in the selection process, justifying the cancellation of appointments.

- They claimed that the government possessed ample jurisdiction under Sections 40 and 58 of the 1973 Act to issue such directions to ensure proper administration in state-funded institutions.

---

Court's Rationale and Legal Principles Applied

Justice J.J. Munir's bench conducted a thorough analysis of the legal questions involved, primarily focusing on two aspects: the violation of natural justice and the limits of the State Government's authority.

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The court found that the inquiry conducted was merely a preliminary, fact-finding exercise and the petitioners were never put on notice or given a chance to defend their appointments against the adverse findings. The judgment emphasized that even a probationer's service cannot be terminated based on allegations that cast a stigma without a fair hearing.

The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences , distinguishing between "motive" and "foundation." It held that the inquiry report and allegations of misconduct were the "foundation" of the termination, not merely a "motive," thus making the termination punitive and requiring adherence to natural justice. The court observed:

"If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as ‘founded’ on the allegations and will be bad."

2. State Government's Lack of Jurisdiction: The court firmly rejected the State's claim of having the authority to directly cancel appointments. It held that the powers of inspection and inquiry under Section 40 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, do not extend to annulling individual appointments made by the competent authority (the college management/authorized controller) with the due approval of the Regional Higher Education Officer. The Court noted:

"It is difficult to read into the wider clause of matters, connected with administration and finances of an affiliated college, the power to cancel appointments or direct a termination of services of individual employees..."

The judgment also highlighted that the State's action of issuing a single, omnibus order to cancel all appointments was legally flawed. Citing the Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Ajit Singh Patel , the court reiterated the principle that an effort must be made to segregate tainted selections from untainted ones, unless the entire process is found to be irredeemably vitiated.

---

Final Decision and Its Implications

The High Court allowed all writ petitions and quashed the impugned Government Order of June 19, 2015, along with all subsequent termination orders issued by the Director of Higher Education and the respective college authorities.

However, the court clarified that this decision does not automatically entitle the petitioners to reinstatement. It granted liberty to the competent Appointing Authority in each case, under the supervision of the Regional Higher Education Officer, to proceed afresh. These authorities must grant the petitioners an effective opportunity of hearing before making any new decision.

The judgment establishes a crucial check on the executive's power over autonomous, state-aided educational institutions, reinforcing that procedural fairness and adherence to statutory limits are paramount, even when addressing allegations of irregularities in public employment.