K. RAGUPATHI vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3913  OF 2022 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9214  of 2022] [@Diary No. 17212 of 2020] K. RAGUPATHI                ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. The   appellant­K.   Ragupathi   has   approached   this 3. rd Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23  May 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition being Writ­A No. 51962 of   2014   filed   by   the   appellant,   thereby   challenging   the communication of the respondent No.3 ­ Registrar, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter 1 th referred to as the “said University”) dated 12  August 2014 informing   the   appellant   that   his   services   stands discontinued. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are 4. as under: In   response   to   the   advertisement   issued   by   the respondent No.3, the appellant had applied to the post of Senior   Scientific   Officer.     After   undergoing   due   selection process, the appellant came to be selected and appointed as Senior   Scientific   Officer   on   contractual   basis   in   the   said rd University vide its order dated 3   August 2011.   The said appointment was  initially  for  a period  of  two years.     The appellant’s services were extended for another period of one th year by the said University vide its order dated 7   August 2013.   However, vide communication of the said University th dated 12  August 2014, the appellant was informed that the th period of his contractual appointment had expired on 11 August 2014 and he was directed to complete the formalities regarding relieving from the service.  Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing writ petition being Writ­A No. 51962 of 2 rd 2014.   Vide the impugned order dated 23   May 2018, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the said writ petition.  Hence, the present appeal. We   have   heard   the   appellant­in­person   and   Shri 5. Vibhav Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. The appellant has submitted that he was appointed after following the due selection process, and as such, his services could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry.   He   further   submitted   that   though   vide th communication   of   the   said   University   dated   12   August 2014,   the   appellant   has   been   relieved,   in   effect   it   would amount to punitive termination.  He further submitted that the   aforesaid   communication   is   passed   in   a   mala   fide manner. 7. Shri   Mishra,   on   the   contrary,   submitted   that   the appellant’s   appointment   was   purely   contractual,   and   as such, the appellant did not have any right to continue in service   after   the   expiry   of   the   contractual   period.     He therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in the 3 impugned   order   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at Allahabad.   8. Shri   Mishra   further   submitted   that   since   the appellant was indulging into certain activities, which were detrimental   to   the   interest   of   the   said   University,   it   was found that the appellant’s continuation in service was not in the interest of the said University. 9. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said University before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad: “5.     That  Clause  (6)  of   the  Amendment  Act  of 2008   substituted   Section   29(1)   of   the   Gautam Budh University Act, 2002.  The amended Section 29(1) reads as under: “(1)     Every   employee   in   the   first instance   shall   be   appointed   under   a written contract, which shall be lodged by the University and the copy of which shall   be   furnished   to   the   employee concerned.” 6.  That consequent to the aforesaid amendment made by the State of U.P., in the statute of the Univesity,   it   is   obligatory   on   the   University   to initially   appoint   employees   only   on   contractual basis. 4 7.  That it is also necessary to clarify at this stage that even though the University is appointing its employees on contractual  basis,  the  method  of selection   and   thereafter   appointment   of   these employees is the same as that which is followed in   the   case   of   regular   appointment   of   its employees. 8.    That for every post which is vacant and which   is   proposed   to   be   filled   up,   the University   publishes   an   open   advertisement inviting   applications   from   all   interested candidates.  Applications so received are then placed   before   a   duly   constituted   Selection Committee,   which   holds   interviews   of   the applicants/candidates   for   the   various   posts. It   is   on   the   basis   of   the   recommendations made   by   the   duly   constituted   Selection Committee   that   appointment   letters appointing the employees on contractual basis are issued by the University. 9.    That these employees, though technically appointed   on   contract,   get   all   benefits   and allowances, as per the Rules applicable.  They are placed in a regular pay­scale and extended annual   increments,   leaves,   EPF/GPF deductions/contributions  and   other   benefits. But for permanency in tenure, their terms and conditions   of   appointment   are   identical   to those of any regularly appointed candidate. 10.   That it may be stated that since 2011, the University has not regularized any candidate on a teaching   post.     All  the   teaching   employees   are continuing on contractual basis. 11.     That   for   considering   regularization,   the University is finalizing detailed guidelines.  These guidelines have been approved by the Board of 5 Management   in   its   meeting   dated   18­5­2015. These guidelines are pending approval from the Board of Governors of the University, which is its apex body. 12.     That   till   such   time   as   the   guidelines   are finally approved by the Board of Governors of the University,   the   University   shall   not   be   in   a position to regularize any of its employees.” [emphasis supplied] 10. As per the affidavit of the said University, it could thus clearly be seen that, for every vacant post, the said University   publishes   an   open   advertisement   inviting applications   from   all   the   interested   candidates.   It   would further show that the appointments are made only after the candidates are selected by the Selection Committee.   It is thus   clear   that   though   the   nomenclature   given   to   the appointment   is   contractual,   candidates   are   required   to undergo the entire selection process.  It could further be seen that as per the affidavit of the said University itself, though the   employees   are   technically   appointed   on   a   contractual basis, they get all the benefits and allowances as per the Rules applicable.  The affidavit would further show that even according to the said University, for permanency in tenure, 6 their terms and conditions of appointment are identical to those of regularly appointed candidates.   11. It  is   thus   clear   that   the   appellant   was   appointed after he underwent the entire selection process.  Even as per the University, though the appointment shows that it is on a contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular basis.  It could thus be seen that even for the appointment on a contractual basis in the said University, a candidate is required to undergo the entire selection process. Though he is appointed on a contractual basis, his terms and conditions are almost like a regular employee.  It will be relevant to note that the Annual Performance Assessment Report (for short “APAR”) of the appellant during the period 2012­13 show his performance to be outstanding.  Every other parameter in his APAR is shown as excellent.  With regard to his integrity, it is mentioned   that   there   is   nothing   against   the   appellant adversely reflecting his integrity.   It is further stated in his APAR that he enjoys a good reputation and his integrity is good.   12. It   will   be   further   relevant   to   refer   to   the   counter affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 2 to 4.  It is stated in paragraph (4) that the reasons for the appellant not being continued in the service are at Annexure P­9 (Page 116­120) and Annexure P­26 (Page 165­166). Insofar as Annexure P­9 is concerned, it is an APAR 13. to which we have already referred hereinabove.  As such, the same cannot be a ground for non­continuation of the services of   the   appellant.   As   a   matter   of   fact,   thereafter,   the appellant’s services have been continued for another one year th vide order dated 7  August 2013.   Insofar   as   the   document   at   Annexure   P­26   is 14. concerned,   it   is   an   administrative   warning   issued   to   the th appellant by the Dean of the said University on 10  January 2014, which reads thus:  “ Office of Dean, Planning & Research GBU­013 /Dplng/09/2014­21         Dated: 10/1/14 Administrative Warning It has been observed that you write on files simply "Put up file on such and such date". You have been continuing to do this even after my several verbal communications and warning against this. This is not only against ethics and official decorum but also against   administrative   norms.   In   response   to   my objections   you   told   me   that   you   have   been instructed   by   the   finance   officer   and   the   earlier 8 officiating registrar, Mr. Pankaj Sharma to do so. You have put this noting even on dates when I have been on leave. Photocopies of such recent notings are being attached herewith as evidence. There is also an overwriting in the date mentioned in one of the   notings.   All   your   above   mentioned   activities amount to gross irregularity in your work and also expose your conspirational character. This definitely makes   you   unfit   to   work   on   any   responsible position.  You are being served this warning in writing to provide you an opportunity to improve your official working and conduct.  S/d  Anuradha Mishra  Dean P & R CC:  1. Registrar for information and record  2. PS to Hon’ble Vice­Chancellor for information” 15. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   though   the th communication of the said University dated 12  August 2014 states that the appellant’s contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case, it would reveal that his services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University.  Since even according to   the   said   University,   though   the   employment   was contractual   but   the   employee   was   entitled   to   get   all   the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant’s services could not have been 9 terminated without following the principles of natural justice. We   therefore   find   that   the   present   appeal   deserves   to   be allowed on this short ground.   rd In the result, the impugned order dated 23   May 16. 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and th the communication passed by the said University dated 12 August   2014,   thereby   discontinuing   the   services   of   the appellant, are quashed and set aside. The   appellant   is   directed   to   be   reinstated   with 17. continuity in service.  However, the appellant would not be entitled to any back wages.   18. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above terms.  No order as to costs.  ……..….......................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] …….........................J.        [B.R. GAVAI] NEW DELHI; MAY 12, 2022. 10