LEGAL ISSUE: Whether teachers appointed through a regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, can be denied substantive appointments based on arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by the University. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. Etc. vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 03 September 2021
Date of the Judgment: 03 September 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 605
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J. The judgment was authored by Ajay Rastogi, J. The bench was unanimous.
Can a university, after conducting a regular selection process, impose arbitrary contractual conditions on appointed teachers, denying them substantive appointments? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, concerning the rights of teachers appointed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. This case revolves around teachers who, despite being selected through a regular process, were offered contractual appointments, leading to a dispute over their service conditions and regularization. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarifies the position of such teachers.
Case Background
The case involves teachers (Associate Professors/Assistant Professors) who were appointed in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences of HNB Garhwal University between 2004 and 2007. At the time of their appointment, the University was a State University governed by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The University later became a Central University in 2009, governed by the Central Universities Act, 2009. These teachers were initially appointed after a regular selection process but were given contractual appointments with a fixed tenure, which was later extended. The dispute arose when the University initiated a fresh selection process in 2011, jeopardizing the service of the existing teachers.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1973 | Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 enacted. |
| 1996 | Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences established as a self-financing scheme under HNB Garhwal University. |
| 1997-2006 | Teaching posts (Lecturer/Reader) created by the Executive Council of the University. |
| 4th February 2004 | Advertisement No. 34 issued for regular selection of teaching posts, including in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences. |
| 30th September 2004 | Candidates called for interviews. |
| 17th October 2004 | Selection committee recommends suitable candidates for appointment. |
| 30th December 2004 | Executive Council approves recommendations, and appointments are made. |
| 19th May 2006 | Advertisement No. 39 issued for regular selection of teaching posts. |
| 20th April 2007 | Interviews held for the advertised posts. |
| 19th May 2007 | Executive Council approves recommendations of the selection committee. |
| 6th July 2007 | Appointments made based on the selection process. |
| 15th January 2009 | HNB Garhwal University converted into a Central University, governed by the Central Universities Act, 2009. |
| 29th August 2011 | University issues advertisement for fresh appointments to teaching posts. |
| 19th August 2013 | Uttarakhand High Court dismisses the writ petition filed by the teachers. |
| 5th September 2013 | Supreme Court issues an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any prejudicial action. |
| 14th August 2020 | University informs UGC that the faculty members are working against sanctioned posts. |
| 03 September 2021 | Supreme Court allows the appeals, quashing the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The teachers, aggrieved by the fresh selection process initiated by the University in 2011, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand. They challenged the contractual nature of their appointments and sought to be treated as substantively appointed teachers. The High Court dismissed their petition, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while issuing notice, had passed an interim order on 5th September 2013, restraining the University from taking any adverse action against the teachers.
Legal Framework
The case is primarily governed by the following legal provisions:
- Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: This Act governed the University at the time of the initial appointments of the teachers. Key provisions include:
- Section 4(1): Establishes the University.
- Section 2(18): Defines self-financing courses.
- Section 9(c): Defines the Vice-Chancellor as an officer of the University.
- Section 19(a): Defines the Executive Council as an authority of the University.
- Section 21(1): Specifies the powers and duties of the Executive Council, including the power to appoint teachers.
- Section 31: Outlines the procedure for the appointment of teachers, including the constitution of a Selection Committee.
- Central Universities Act, 2009: This Act governs the University after its conversion to a Central University. Key provisions include:
- Section 4(d): Protects the service conditions of employees of the University before its conversion to a Central University.
- Section 27: Empowers the University to frame statutes.
- Statute 18: Defines the constitution of the Selection Committee for appointments.
- Pharmacy Act, 1948: Governs the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), which regulates pharmacy courses.
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 23 was invoked by the appellants to argue that the arbitrary conditions in their appointment letters were against public policy.
The Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, established the University and defined its governance structure. The Central Universities Act, 2009, came into effect when the University became a Central University, and it protects the rights of the existing employees. The Pharmacy Act, 1948, establishes the Pharmacy Council of India, which regulates pharmacy courses offered by the University.
Arguments
Arguments of the Appellants:
- The appellants argued that they were appointed through a regular selection process as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.
- They contended that the arbitrary condition of contractual appointment for a limited period in their appointment letters was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
- The appellants submitted that they were not in an equal bargaining position and were compelled to accept the terms and conditions of employment.
- They argued that their service conditions are protected under Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009.
- The appellants relied on the judgments in Arjun Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [2015(15) SCC 713] and Abdul Hakeem M.A. and Others vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others [2019(16) SCC 328] to support their claim that the appointments were substantive in nature.
- The appellants argued that they should be treated as substantively appointed against the regular sanctioned posts.
Arguments of the Respondents:
- The respondents argued that the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences was under a self-financing scheme, and the posts were temporary/contractual.
- They contended that merely following the procedure under Part VI of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, does not grant the appellants an indefeasible right to a substantive appointment.
- The respondents submitted that after the University became a Central University, appointments are to be made under the Central Universities Act, 2009.
- The respondents argued that the appellants failed to participate in the fresh selection process initiated in 2011 and are not entitled to regularization.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Appointment | ✓ Appellants were appointed through a regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. ✓ The appointments were substantive in nature, despite the contractual conditions. |
✓ The Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences was under a self-financing scheme, making the posts temporary/contractual. ✓ Following the procedure under the Act of 1973 does not guarantee a substantive appointment. |
| Validity of Contractual Terms | ✓ The contractual conditions in the appointment letters were arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. ✓ Appellants were not in an equal bargaining position and were forced to accept the terms. |
✓ The University was within its rights to offer contractual appointments under the self-financing scheme. |
| Protection of Service Conditions | ✓ The service conditions of the appellants are protected under Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009. | ✓ After the University became a Central University, appointments are to be made under the Central Universities Act, 2009. |
| Regularization of Service | ✓ The appellants should be treated as substantively appointed against regular sanctioned posts. ✓ The University has also recommended that the appellants may be treated as filled up positions. |
✓ The appellants failed to participate in the fresh selection process initiated in 2011 and are not entitled to regularization. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:
- Whether the appointments of the appellants were substantive in nature, despite the contractual terms in their appointment letters.
- Whether the arbitrary conditions in the appointment letters were valid under the law.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the appointments of the appellants were substantive in nature, despite the contractual terms in their appointment letters. | The Court held that the appointments were substantive in nature because the appellants were appointed through a regular selection process as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Court held that the contractual conditions were arbitrary and could not negate the substantive nature of the appointment. |
| Whether the arbitrary conditions in the appointment letters were valid under the law. | The Court held that the arbitrary conditions in the appointment letters were not valid. The Court reasoned that the appellants were not in a position to bargain with the University and were forced to accept the terms. The Court held that such conditions violated Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. |
| Whether the appellants are entitled to be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University. | The Court held that the appellants were entitled to be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University. The Court reasoned that the University itself had informed the UGC that these teachers were working against sanctioned posts. The Court held that the appellants were entitled to all the benefits of a regularly appointed teacher in the Central University. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Arjun Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [2015(15) SCC 713] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to support the argument that appointments made through a regular selection process are substantive in nature. |
| Abdul Hakeem M.A. and Others vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others [2019(16) SCC 328] | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this case to support the argument that appointments made through a regular selection process are substantive in nature. |
| Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 | The Court analyzed various sections of this Act to determine the procedure for appointment of teachers and the powers of the Executive Council. | |
| Central Universities Act, 2009 | The Court analyzed Section 4(d) of this Act to determine the protection of service conditions of employees after the conversion of the University to a Central University. | |
| Indian Contract Act, 1872 | The Court considered Section 23 of this Act, which deals with contracts against public policy, to analyze the validity of the contractual conditions. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the appellants were appointed through a regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, and their appointments were substantive in nature. The Court further held that the arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by the University were invalid. The Court directed that the appellants be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University, entitled to all the benefits of a regularly appointed teacher.
| Submission by Parties | Treatment by Court |
|---|---|
| Appellants were appointed through a regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the appointments were indeed made through a regular selection process. |
| The contractual conditions in the appointment letters were arbitrary and invalid. | The Court agreed that the contractual conditions were arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution and Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. |
| The service conditions of the appellants are protected under Section 4(d) of the Central Universities Act, 2009. | The Court acknowledged that Section 4(d) of the Act protects the service conditions of the employees. |
| The appellants should be treated as substantively appointed against regular sanctioned posts. | The Court held that the appellants should be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University. |
| The Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences was under a self-financing scheme, making the posts temporary/contractual. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the regular selection process made the appointments substantive, regardless of the financing scheme. |
| The appellants failed to participate in the fresh selection process initiated in 2011 and are not entitled to regularization. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the appellants’ substantive appointments were valid and did not require them to participate in a fresh selection process. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Arjun Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [2015(15) SCC 713]:* The Court followed this authority to determine that appointments made through a regular selection process are substantive in nature.
- Abdul Hakeem M.A. and Others vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others [2019(16) SCC 328]:* The Court followed this authority to determine that appointments made through a regular selection process are substantive in nature.
- Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973: The Court interpreted the provisions of this Act to ascertain the procedure for appointment of teachers and the powers of the Executive Council.
- Central Universities Act, 2009: The Court interpreted Section 4(d) of this Act to determine the protection of service conditions of employees after the conversion of the University to a Central University.
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: The Court interpreted Section 23 of this Act to analyze the validity of the contractual conditions and held that such conditions were against public policy.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the teachers were appointed through a regular selection process as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Court emphasized that the arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by the University could not negate the substantive nature of the appointments. The Court also considered the fact that the University itself had informed the University Grants Commission (UGC) that these teachers were working against sanctioned posts, indicating that the posts were not temporary in nature. The Court held that denying the teachers the status of substantively appointed teachers would be unjust, especially given their long service and the fact that they had fulfilled all the requirements for appointment as teachers. The Court also considered the fact that the teachers were not in an equal bargaining position and were forced to accept the arbitrary terms of employment.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Regular Selection Process | 30% |
| Arbitrary Contractual Conditions | 25% |
| University’s Admission to UGC | 20% |
| Long Service of Teachers | 15% |
| Unequal Bargaining Power | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Fact:Law: The ratio of fact to law is 30:70. The court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the selection process, the contractual conditions, and the university’s communication to the UGC, to a lesser extent than the legal provisions and principles involved.
Logical Reasoning
Teachers appointed through regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973
University imposes contractual conditions in appointment letters
Teachers challenge contractual conditions, claiming substantive appointment
Supreme Court holds that regular selection implies substantive appointment, contractual terms are arbitrary
Teachers are entitled to be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University
The Court’s reasoning is based on the premise that a regular selection process, as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, inherently leads to a substantive appointment. The imposition of arbitrary contractual conditions by the University was deemed invalid as it was against public policy and the teachers were not in a position to bargain. The Court also considered the University’s own communication to the UGC, which acknowledged that the teachers were working against sanctioned posts. The Court concluded that the teachers were entitled to be treated as substantively appointed teachers of the Central University, with all the benefits of a regularly appointed teacher.
The Court considered the argument that the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences was under a self-financing scheme and the posts were temporary. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the regular selection process made the appointments substantive regardless of the financing scheme. The Court also rejected the argument that the teachers failed to participate in the fresh selection process initiated in 2011, stating that their substantive appointments were valid and did not require them to participate in a fresh selection process.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“The term ‘substantive appointment’ is not so defined in the legal dictionary but has been referred in the service jurisprudence by the recruiting authority while framing Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution and what being termed as “substantive appointment ” can be gathered from U.P. Sales tax Officers (Grade II) Service Rules, 1983.”
“In our considered view, once the appellants have gone through the process of selection provided under the scheme of the Act 1973 regardless of the fact whether the post is temporary or permanent in nature, at least their appointment is substantive in character and could be made permanent as and when the post is permanently sanctioned by the competent authority.”
“Thus, it can safely be held that the appellants became entitled to claim their appointment to be in substantive capacity against the permanent sanctioned post and become a member of the teaching faculty of the Central University under the Act 2009.”
Key Takeaways
- Regular appointments made through a proper selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, are considered substantive appointments, regardless of any contractual terms imposed by the employer.
- Arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by an employer, especially when the employee is not in an equal bargaining position, can be challenged in court.
- The service conditions of employees are protected under the Central Universities Act, 2009, even after the conversion of a State University to a Central University.
- Universities must treat teachers appointed through a regular process as substantive employees, entitled to all benefits, and cannot deny them this status based on arbitrary conditions or the nature of the funding scheme.
- The judgment provides relief to teachers who were denied the benefits of substantive appointments despite being selected through a regular process.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be treated as substantively appointed teachers (Associate Professor/Assistant Professor) and members of the service of the Central University, namely, HNB Garhwal University. They are entitled to a pay scale and notional consequential benefits admissible to a regularly appointed teacher in the service of the Central University under the Act 2009.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appointment made through a regular selection process as per the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, is substantive in nature, and arbitrary contractual conditions cannot negate this. This judgment clarifies the position of teachers appointed through a regular process and protects their rights. This case reaffirms the principle that a regular selection process leads to a substantive appointment and that arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by the employer, especially in public employment, are invalid. This also reinforces the protection of service conditions under the Central Universities Act, 2009.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case provides significant relief to teachers who were denied the benefits of substantive appointments despite being selected through a regular process. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and transparent selection process and protected the rights of employees who were in a weaker bargaining position. The judgment clarifies that once a regular selection process is followed, the appointment is substantive, and any arbitrary contractual conditions cannot negate this. This case serves as a reminder of the need for employers to act fairly and transparently and to respect the rights of their employees.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Appointment of Teachers
Child Category: Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973
Child Category: Central Universities Act, 2009
Child Category: Section 4(d), Central Universities Act, 2009
Child Category: Substantive Appointment
FAQ
Q: What is a substantive appointment?
A: A substantive appointment is an appointment to a permanent post, made after a regular selection process, as per the rules and regulations. It is not an ad hoc or temporary appointment.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that teachers appointed through a regular selection process under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, are entitled to substantive appointments, regardless of any arbitrary contractual conditions imposed by the University.
Q: What is the significance of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, in this case?
A: This Act governed the University at the time of the initial appointments of the teachers. The Court relied on the provisions of this Act to determine that the selection process was regular and valid.
Q: What is the significance of the Central Universities Act, 2009, in this case?
A: This Act came into effect when the University became a Central University. Section 4(d) of this Act protects the service conditions of employees of the University before its conversion to a Central University.
Q: What does this judgment mean for teachers in similar situations?
A: This judgment means that teachers appointed through a regular selection process are entitled to substantive appointments and cannot be denied this status based on arbitrary contractual conditions. It also means that their service conditions are protected even if the university is converted from a State University to a Central University.
Q: Can employers impose any terms and conditions of employment?
A: No, employers cannot impose arbitrary terms and conditions of employment, especially when the employee is not in an equal bargaining position. Such conditions can be challenged in court.
Q: What is the impact of this judgment on the University?
A: The University is now required to treat the teachers as substantively appointed and provide them with all the benefits of a regularly appointed teacher. The University cannot deny them this status based on the fact that their posts were initially under a self-financing scheme.
Q: What if a teacher is forced to sign a contract with arbitrary conditions?
A: If a teacher is forced to sign a contract with arbitrary conditions, they can challenge those conditions in court, especially if the conditions are not in line with the law or public policy.