Supreme Court Reinstates Professor Illegally Terminated: Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29th October, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 750
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud J., Vikram Nath J., B.V. Nagarathna J.
Can a university terminate a professor’s services merely because the funding plan under which they were hired has expired? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a professor whose services were terminated when the Tenth Five Year Plan ended. The Court examined whether the termination was legal, considering the nature of the appointment and the university’s actions. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, and B.V. Nagarathna, delivered the judgment, with Justice Nagarathna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University was established in 2001 and was included in the list of Universities eligible for Central Government assistance under Section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, from May 20, 2003. The University created statutes in 2002, which included a Faculty of Social Science with a Department of Political Science. In April 2004, the University Grants Commission (UGC) provided grants to the University under the Tenth Plan, which included funding for a lecturer in the Department of Political Science. On July 3, 2004, the University advertised a vacancy in the Political Science Department. Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi, the appellant, applied, was selected as Assistant Professor, and received an appointment letter on December 4, 2004, with a pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500.

Dr. Tripathi claimed that he was forced to donate Rs. 5,000 from his salary to the University each month. He objected to this deduction but continued to pay. He later requested a Ph.D. incentive as per UGC guidelines. On July 19, 2006, the University Registrar informed him that his post was only for the Tenth Plan, which would expire on March 31, 2007, and his services would be terminated on that date. On March 1, 2007, the Registrar further communicated that his services were no longer needed as his post was abolished, effective March 31, 2007.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Dr. Tripathi filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20470/2007 before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the abolition of his post and his subsequent removal. He argued that the University had stated his post was abolished while simultaneously requesting the UGC for continued funding for the same post under the Eleventh Plan. The High Court listed the writ petition on November 2, 2007, and directed written arguments to be filed by November 5, 2007. On February 8, 2008, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating there was no illegality in the University’s decision to abolish the post and terminate Dr. Tripathi’s services. Aggrieved by this decision, Dr. Tripathi filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which was granted on October 7, 2021.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, specifically Section 12(b), which deals with the eligibility of universities to receive financial assistance from the Central Government. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, empowers the UGC to make regulations and provide grants to eligible universities. The respondent-University was included in the list of Universities eligible to receive assistance from the Central Government under Section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

The Court also considered the terms of the appointment letter issued to the appellant and the relevant clauses of the Statutes of the University.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that his termination as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science by the respondent-University was wrongful.
• He contended that although his appointment was under the Tenth Five Year Plan, supported by the UGC, his services were continued under the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
• The appellant highlighted that the University communicated to the UGC the requirement of a post in the Department of Political Science even under the Eleventh Plan, which was the very post he held.
• He relied on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, which stated that his termination was “perverse and incorrect” and recommended his reinstatement.
• The appellant also claimed that his termination was a result of his protest against the mandatory deduction of Rs. 5,000 per month from his salary as donation to the University.

Respondent-University’s Arguments:

• The respondent-University contended that the appellant’s appointment was under a UGC scheme sanctioned under the Tenth Five Year Plan, which ended on March 31, 2007.
• It argued that the appellant’s post was abolished on the expiry of the Tenth Plan, and therefore, his services were rightly terminated.
• The University stated that the appointment was not on a permanent basis but was tenure-based and linked to the Tenth Plan, as mentioned in the appointment letter dated December 4, 2004.
• The University reiterated that the High Court had correctly concluded that the services of the appellant were rightly terminated.

UGC’s Arguments:

• The UGC supported the appellant’s claim, stating that the second Expert Committee had found the termination to be “perverse and incorrect.”
• The UGC highlighted that the University had admitted that all teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan were made permanent from their appointment date.
• It also noted that the University had sought funds for a post in the Department of Political Science under the Eleventh Plan, even after claiming to have abolished the department.
• The UGC submitted that the second Expert Committee recommended the reinstatement of the appellant, or his absorption in another department if the Political Science Department was abolished.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the termination of the services of the appellant was legal and in accordance with law or not.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: This provision deals with the eligibility of universities to receive financial assistance from the Central Government.

Cases:

No cases were specifically cited in the judgment.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: The court used this to establish the University’s eligibility for funding and the basis for the appellant’s post.

The Supreme Court concluded that the termination of Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi’s services was illegal and not in accordance with law. The Court noted that the appointment letter did not state that the appointment was contractual, and the University had continued to seek funds for the post even after the Tenth Plan period. The Court also relied on the findings of the second Expert Committee constituted by the UGC, which had deemed the termination “perverse and incorrect.”

The Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the University to reinstate Dr. Tripathi as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science. The Court further directed that he be granted continuity of service for the purpose of pension and retirement benefits. However, he was not entitled to any salary for the period from March 31, 2007, until the date of reinstatement, based on the principle of “no work, no pay.” The Court also directed that Dr. Tripathi be given notional fixation of salary and other benefits, if such benefits had been extended to other similarly situated employees.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Nature of Appointment: The Court emphasized that the appointment letter did not mention that the appointment was contractual. The letter stated that the appointment was for the Tenth Plan but was “likely to be continued depending upon the performance of the candidate and availability of post.” This indicated that the appointment was not strictly tied to the duration of the Tenth Plan.
• University’s Actions: The Court noted that the University had continued to seek funds for the post under the Eleventh Plan, indicating that the need for the post continued even after the Tenth Plan ended. The University had also admitted that all teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan were made permanent from the date of their appointment.
• UGC Expert Committee Findings: The Court relied heavily on the findings of the second Expert Committee of the UGC, which had found that the termination was “perverse and incorrect.” The committee had also highlighted that the University had not treated Dr. Tripathi fairly compared to other teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan.
• Fairness and Equity: The Court emphasized that all other appointees under the Tenth Plan were made permanent, except the appellant. This differential treatment was a significant factor in the Court’s decision.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the specific facts of the case, such as the nature of the appointment, the University’s actions, and the findings of the UGC Expert Committee, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Nature of Appointment: The terms of appointment letters must be clear about whether an appointment is contractual or permanent. Ambiguous clauses can be interpreted in favor of the employee.
• University Obligations: Universities must act fairly and equitably when dealing with employees, especially those appointed under specific funding plans.
• UGC Recommendations: The recommendations of expert committees constituted by the UGC are given significant weight by the courts.
• Continuity of Service: Employees are entitled to continuity of service, especially when the need for their position continues even after the expiry of a specific funding plan.
• No Work, No Pay: The principle of “no work, no pay” will be applied for the period the employee has not worked.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-University to:

• Reinstate Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi as Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science.
• Grant him the benefit of continuity of service for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits.
• Provide notional fixation of salary and other benefits if such benefits have been extended to other similarly situated employees.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee appointed under a specific funding plan cannot be terminated merely because the plan has expired, especially when the appointment letter does not specify a contractual nature and the need for the position continues. This judgment reinforces the principle of fair and equitable treatment of employees and emphasizes the importance of clear terms of appointment. The Court also highlighted that the University had not treated Dr. Tripathi fairly compared to other teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Handicapped University sets a precedent for the protection of employees whose services are terminated due to the expiry of funding plans. The Court emphasized the importance of clear terms of appointment and the need for universities to act fairly and equitably. The decision underscores that a university cannot terminate an employee’s services simply because a funding plan has ended, especially when the need for the position continues, and the appointment was not explicitly contractual. The Court’s order to reinstate Dr. Tripathi with continuity of service highlights the importance of protecting employees from arbitrary termination.

Category

• Parent Category: Service Law
• Child Category: Termination of Service
• Child Category: Reinstatement
• Parent Category: University Grants Commission Act, 1956
• Child Category: Section 12(b), University Grants Commission Act, 1956

FAQ

Q: Can a university terminate an employee simply because the funding plan under which they were hired has expired?
A: No, the Supreme Court has ruled that an employee cannot be terminated solely because the funding plan has expired, especially if the appointment letter does not specify a contractual nature and the need for the position continues.

Q: What does “continuity of service” mean in this context?
A: “Continuity of service” means that the employee’s past service is counted for the purpose of pension and retirement benefits, even though there was a break in service due to the illegal termination.

Q: What is the “no work, no pay” principle?
A: The “no work, no pay” principle means that an employee is not entitled to payment for the period during which they did not work, even if their termination was found to be illegal.

Q: What should I do if I think my termination was illegal?
A: If you believe your termination was illegal, you should seek legal advice and gather all relevant documents, including your appointment letter, any communications from your employer, and any relevant regulations or statutes.

Q: How does this judgment impact universities?
A: This judgment requires universities to be more careful about how they frame appointment letters and to ensure that they treat employees fairly and equitably, especially those hired under specific funding plans.