A bona fide appointee cannot bear the consequences of authorities’ recruitment lapses and decade-long inaction.

In 2007, the management obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and advertised a lecturer post in Commerce and Law.

A selection committee that included University and State nominees selected the Petitioner, who was appointed from 1 December 2007 after resigning from her previous teaching post.

The management sought University approval shortly after her appointment, but the University refused approval only on 10 June 2017, citing the absence of a sanctioned Open-category vacancy in Commerce and Law and stating that the advertisement was not for a Costing post.

The parties accepted that an Open-category vacancy existed in Costing; the management also stated that the Petitioner was qualified to teach, and had taught, Costing.

The Petitioner challenged the refusal and sought approval with consequential benefits.

Whether the University’s refusal to approve the Petitioner’s appointment was sustainable where the post had been advertised and filled through a selection process conducted after a State-issued NOC, despite the asserted absence of a sanctioned Open-category post in Commerce and Law

Whether, in the circumstances—including the Petitioner’s bona fide selection, her resignation from prior employment, the available Costing vacancy, and the University’s ten-year delay—the Petitioner was entitled to approval from 1 December 2007 and consequential benefits

The Court applied the principle that State action and decisions of public authorities must be fair and non-arbitrary under Article 14, and that a person’s legitimate expectation is a relevant factor that must receive due consideration; failure to consider it may render a decision arbitrary.

It relied on Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71, for those principles.

The Court also distinguished Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, observing that this was not a case of backdoor entry.

The UGC Regulations, 2000, were considered in relation to the parties’ contention that Costing falls within Commerce and that the relevant qualifications were the same.

The Court found that the management’s error in advertising a Commerce and Law post was compounded by the State’s grant of an NOC and the participation of University and State nominees in the selection committee, which unanimously selected the Petitioner.

The Petitioner had no blameworthy conduct and had changed her position by resigning from her former employment.

The Court also noted the available Open-category vacancy in Costing, the asserted overlap between Costing and Commerce, and that the University had not communicated its decision on the approval proposal for about ten years.

In these circumstances, the refusal could not fairly penalize the Petitioner for the authorities’ and management’s procedural lapses; her legitimate expectation required consideration.

It allowed the petition, quashed the University’s order dated 10 June 2017, and directed Respondents 3 to 5 to grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment with effect from 1 December 2007, together with consequential benefits, salary arrears, and increments, within twelve weeks.