Termination of Long-Serving Non-Teaching Staff for Lack of UGC Approval Is Illegal: Gujarat High Court

The High Court of Gujarat has delivered a definitive ruling regarding the employment security of non-teaching staff in universities, underscoring that institutions cannot retroactively terminate long-service employees based on supposed lapses in University Grants Commission (UGC) approvals for non-teaching roles.

A Journey of Service Interrupted

The case involved Raxaben Anilkumar Patel, who was initially appointed as a Library Assistant at Gujarat Vidhyapith in 1983. Over the course of her tenure, she fulfilled various university-imposed requirements, including obtaining additional educational qualifications as requested by her employer.

In 2017, after nearly two decades of service, the university terminated her employment, citing an audit objection from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) which alleged that the respondent lacked mandatory NET/SLET qualifications and had never received explicit UGC approval for her appointment. This dismissal, coupled with a demand for the recovery of salary paid over the previous years, prompted litigation that eventually reached the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Arguments: Jurisdiction and Necessity

The appellant, Gujarat Vidhyapith, argued that the learned Single Judge erred by failing to implead the UGC as a necessary party, contending that the validity of the appointment was inherently tied to UGC regulations. They maintained that because her appointment to the Assistant Librarian post lacked UGC sanction, her removal was not only justified but compelled by audit observations.

Conversely, the respondent maintained that her appointment was governed by the internal statutes of the university and that the UGC, as confirmed in previous affidavits filed before the High Court, played no regulatory role in the selection criteria for non-teaching staff.

Court’s Legal Analysis

The Division Bench, presided over by Justices Bhargav D. Karia and L.S. Pirzada, scrutinized the role of the UGC in appointments for non-teaching cadre. Referencing prior findings the Bench noted that the UGC had explicitly clarified in earlier proceedings that it does not regulate non-teaching appointments.

The Court observed:

> "Considering the dictum of the Division Bench of this Court, it becomes clear that the UGC has never prescribed any Regulation prescribing eligibility criteria for the post of non-teaching staff in Gujarat Vidyapith."

The Bench further emphasized the unreasonable nature of the university's belated action, highlighting that terminating an employee after 17 to 18 years of service based on an alleged lack of approval—which the UGC itself deemed unnecessary—violates basic principles of administrative fairness.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that universities cannot use the pretext of "lack of UGC approval" to divest non-teaching staff of their livelihoods years after their appointment. The Court held:

• On the role of UGC: "The respondent-UGC only issues directions on the pay-scale and the respective universities are under obligation to make appointments against only sanctioned posts by following norms of Government of India... the dispute involved in the present petition... is an administrative issue of respondent No.1- Gujarat Vidhyapith for which UGC has no role to play."
• On the validity of termination: "Considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the fact that the UGC has no role to play in appointments so far as non-teaching staff are concerned, the decision taken by the Executive Council of the appellant University cannot be said to be contrary to any UGC guidelines."

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Gujarat Vidhyapith, affirming the Single Judge's order. The university has been directed to grant all consequential benefits, including full pensionary dues, to the respondent. This ruling serves as a vital precedent, shielding long-standing non-teaching staff from arbitrary terminations based on jurisdictional misinterpretations of UGC mandates.