Orissa HC Sets Aside KIIT Assistant Professor’s Second Termination, Holds Court-Ordered Service Continuity Made Him Confirmed Under UGC Rules

The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor at KIIT University in 2010, subject to a one-year probationary period.

The University terminated him in June 2011, before that period expired.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court set aside the termination, directed that he be deemed to have continued in service for the intervening period, and awarded 60% back wages; it left the University free to pursue allegations against him lawfully.

After the appellant submitted a rejoining report in October 2014, the University treated him as having a remaining period of probation and terminated his employment with effect from 23 November 2014, following an assessment of his suitability.

A Single Judge dismissed his challenge, holding that the termination was non-punitive and that he remained a probationer.

The appellant appealed.

Regulation 11 of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 governed probation and confirmation.

Regulation 11.1 sets a one-year minimum probation period, extendable by a maximum of one further year for unsatisfactory performance; Regulation 11.2 provides for automatic confirmation at the end of the first year unless probation is extended by a specific order before that year expires; and Regulation 11.3 requires an order of confirmation following verification of satisfactory performance.

The Court treated the earlier judgment’s direction that the appellant be deemed to have continued in service as requiring the intervening period to count for purposes of his service and probation.

It also recognised that the University remained free to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court held that the earlier judgment’s continuity direction covered the period between the first termination and the judgment, and that the University’s payment of 60% back wages for that period was consistent with that continuity.

Applying Regulation 11, it concluded that probation could not continue indefinitely: it could extend only by one additional year, and no specific extension had been communicated before expiry of the initial year.

The University therefore could not treat the appellant as still on probation in November 2014 after the period of deemed continuous service was taken into account.

The Court found the termination contrary to the Regulations and the earlier judgment, and did not need to decide the allegations of misconduct; those could be addressed through lawful proceedings.

It allowed the writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s judgment dismissing the writ petition.

The University may initiate appropriate departmental proceedings in accordance with law, and the appellant is entitled to 60% back wages.