Supreme Court Rules on Permanent Employment Status of University Lecturer: Dr. Jacob K. Daniel vs. Mahatma Gandhi University (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 441

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit J., S. Ravindra Bhat J., Sudhanshu Dhulia J.

Was a university lecturer’s appointment permanent, or merely temporary? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving Dr. Jacob K. Daniel and Mahatma Gandhi University. This case clarifies the employment status of university staff and their entitlement to benefits. The bench consisted of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Case Background

Dr. Jacob K. Daniel, the appellant, was working as a Senior Lecturer at Pondicherry Engineering College. He applied for a position as Lecturer in Mathematics at the College of Engineering, Thodupuzha, under Mahatma Gandhi University, responding to a notification dated July 15, 1996. He was selected and issued an appointment letter. The appointment letter mentioned that his appointment would be governed by the Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes, 1991.

Following his appointment, Dr. Daniel requested that the University protect his basic pay, which he was drawing as a Senior Lecturer at Pondicherry Engineering College. The University fixed his pay at Rs. 3500 in the same pay scale vide communication dated 31.07.1998.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam passed a judgment and order dated 20.11.2015 in Writ Appeal No.339 of 2015. Subsequently, a review petition, Review Petition No. 3 of 2016, arising from the disposal of Writ Appeal No. 339 of 2015, was also decided by the High Court on 20.09.2017. The Special Leave Petitions filed by the teaching staff of Mahatma Gandhi University, including the present appellant, were initially listed together. The appeals filed by other members of the teaching staff were allowed, and the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Single Judge was restored. However, the case concerning Dr. Jacob K. Daniel was segregated due to some documents suggesting that his appointment was temporary.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the terms of appointment and the applicable service rules. The appointment letter stated that Dr. Daniel’s appointment would be governed by the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes, 1991. The court also considered Rule-13 Part I of the Kerala Services Rules, which requires a medical certificate of fitness for appointment.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that the appointment letter and the subsequent actions of the University, such as fixing his pay scale, indicated that his appointment was of a permanent nature and not temporary. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the initial notification invited applications for a permanent position.

The University’s counsel contended that the documents suggested the appointment was temporary. However, the specific arguments made by the University were not elaborated in the judgment.

The counsel for the appellant relied on the fact that the notification dated 15.07.1996 invited applications for the post of Lecturer in Mathematics in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The appellant, who was working as a Senior Lecturer in Pondicherry Engineering College, applied for the post and was selected. The appointment letter issued to the appellant did not mention that the appointment was temporary. The relevant portion of the appointment letter is as follows:

“With reference to his/her application for the post of Lecturer in the College of
Engineering, Thodupuzha, under School of Technology and Applied Sciences
of the University, Sri Dr. Jacob K. Daniel is informed that he has been selected
for appointment as Lecturer in Mathematics in the scale of Rs.2,200 – 4,000 /-.
He is therefore, directed to report for duty before the Director, School of
Technology and Applied Sciences forthwith along with a Medical Certificate of
fitness as required in Rule-13 Part I Kerala Services Rules obtained from a
Medical Officer not below the rank of Assistant Surgeon in a Government
Hospital.
He is informed that his appointment in the University will be governed by
the provisions in Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes, 1991.”

Further, the counsel for the appellant argued that the University considered the request of the appellant to protect his basic pay which he was drawing as a Senior Lecturer in Pondicherry Engineering College and fixed his pay at Rs. 3500 in the same pay scale vide communication dated 31.07.1998. All these developments are indicative that the appointment of the appellant was not on any temporary basis but it was a permanent appointment in the University.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue revolved around whether the appointment of the appellant was permanent or temporary.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on its previous judgment in Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Others v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Others [(2019) 16 SCC 328]. The Court noted that the appeals filed by other members of the teaching staff were allowed and the judgment and orders under appeal were set-aside and the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Single Judge was restored. The Court followed the same reasoning in the present case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Dr. Jacob K. Daniel was permanent, relying on the same terms as indicated in its judgment in Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Others v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Others [(2019) 16 SCC 328].

The Court stated that, “All these developments are indicative that the appointment of the appellant was not on any temporary basis but it was a permanent appointment in the University.”

The Court further ordered that all retiral and pensionary benefits shall be computed on the basis that he was in permanent employment of the University and all the dues shall be made over to the appellant within eight weeks from today.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the documentary evidence, particularly the appointment letter and the subsequent communication regarding pay fixation. The court emphasized that the initial notification did not indicate that the post was temporary. The fact that the University considered the request of the appellant to protect his basic pay which he was drawing as a Senior Lecturer in Pondicherry Engineering College and fixed his pay at Rs. 3500 in the same pay scale also weighed in the mind of the Court to come to the conclusion that the appointment was permanent.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ University appointments should clearly state whether they are permanent or temporary.
• ✓ Actions of the University, such as pay fixation, can be indicative of the nature of appointment.
• ✓ The Court will rely on documentary evidence to determine the nature of employment.
• ✓ Retiral and pensionary benefits are to be computed on the basis of permanent employment if there is no indication of temporary employment in the appointment letter.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that all retiral and pensionary benefits should be computed on the basis that the appellant was in permanent employment of the University. The Court also directed that all dues should be paid to the appellant within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the appointment of Dr. Jacob K. Daniel was permanent, relying on the terms as indicated in the judgment in Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Others v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Others [(2019) 16 SCC 328]. This case reinforces the principle that the nature of employment is determined by the terms of the appointment letter and the actions of the employer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that Dr. Jacob K. Daniel’s appointment as a Lecturer in Mathematics at Mahatma Gandhi University was permanent. The Court directed the University to compute and pay all retiral and pensionary benefits to the appellant within eight weeks. This decision clarifies the importance of clear terms of appointment and the implications of subsequent actions by the employer in determining the nature of employment.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Permanent Employment

Child Category: Mahatma Gandhi University First Statutes, 1991

Child Category: Rule-13 Part I Kerala Services Rules

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the case?

A: The main issue was whether Dr. Jacob K. Daniel’s appointment as a lecturer at Mahatma Gandhi University was permanent or temporary.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that Dr. Daniel’s appointment was permanent.

Q: What factors did the Court consider?

A: The Court considered the appointment letter, the notification inviting applications, and the University’s actions regarding pay fixation.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment emphasizes the importance of clear terms of appointment and that the actions of the employer can determine the nature of employment.

Q: What directions were given by the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court directed the University to compute and pay all retiral and pensionary benefits to Dr. Daniel within eight weeks, treating his employment as permanent.