Supreme Court settles status of teachers in self-financing institutions: Abdul Hakeem vs. Mahatma Gandhi University (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 177

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can teachers in self-financing institutions claim the same status and benefits as regular university teachers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case, clarifying the rights of educators in such institutions. This judgment revolves around whether teachers appointed in self-financing institutions affiliated with Mahatma Gandhi University are entitled to be treated as regular employees of the University. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indira Banerjee, with Justice Lalit authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute arose when several teachers appointed at the University College of Engineering, Thodupuzha, a self-financing institution under Mahatma Gandhi University, were denied pay revisions and other benefits. These teachers, including the appellants, were initially appointed through selection processes that adhered to University Statutes. After completing their probation, the University declined to grant them pay revisions, categorizing them as temporary employees. This led to the filing of a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala.

The University’s Syndicate had initially resolved on 06.07.1996 to create teaching posts for B.Tech courses, specifying that teachers for certain subjects would be on contract/part-time basis. Subsequently, on 25.08.1997, additional teaching posts were created for the University College of Engineering. The appellants were appointed as Lecturers pursuant to these notifications. The University later extended pay revision benefits to non-teaching staff on 04.08.1999, and the Government of Kerala issued an order on 18.05.2000 implementing revised pay scales for teachers in Engineering Colleges from 01.01.1996. However, the University, on 23.03.2001, limited these benefits to teachers of the University College of Engineering from 01.01.2001, describing them as temporarily appointed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court initially allowed the writ petition, declaring the teachers to be regular employees entitled to pay revisions. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the teachers were not “teachers of the University” as defined in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, and were not governed by the University Statutes. The Division Bench also noted that the self-financing institutions were funded by student fees and not by government grants. The appellants then filed a review petition, which was also dismissed by the High Court. During this time, a separate Division Bench of the same High Court ruled in favor of other teachers from the same institution in a similar matter. The University’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, and the University Statutes. The key issue was whether the teachers of the self-financing institutions could be considered “teachers of the University” under Section 2(30) of the Act. The University argued that the self-financing institutions were not part of the University’s regular departments and that their teachers were not governed by the University Statutes.

The relevant provisions include:
✓ Section 2(30) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, which defines “teachers of the University”.
✓ The University Statutes, which govern the service conditions of the University’s teachers.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their appointments were against substantive posts created by the University Syndicate.
• They contended that they were never informed that their appointments were temporary.
• They emphasized that their appointment orders stated that they were governed by the University Statutes.
• They relied on the Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No.727 of 2011, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the teachers.
• They pointed out that the University had represented them as permanent employees to the AICTE.

University’s Arguments:

• The University contended that the University College of Engineering was a self-financing institution, not part of the University’s regular departments.
• It argued that the self-financing institutions did not receive grants from the government or AICTE.
• It stated that the income from self-financing institutions was used for infrastructure and staff remuneration.
• It asserted that the University Statutes did not apply to teachers of self-financing institutions.
• It relied on a resolution of the statutory Finance Committee of the University from 05.08.1997, which recommended creating the posts for three years.

The appellants argued that the University’s actions, including representing them as permanent faculty to AICTE and including the self-financing institutions’ income in the University fund, indicated that they were indeed regular employees of the University. The University, on the other hand, maintained that the self-financing nature of the institution and the lack of government funding justified treating the teachers differently.

The innovativeness of the argument from the appellants lies in their ability to highlight the inconsistency in the University’s stance across different forums. By pointing out that the University had represented them as permanent employees to AICTE, they effectively undermined the University’s claim that they were temporary employees.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the teachers appointed in the self-financing institution were appointed against substantive posts.
2. Whether the teachers were temporary or permanent employees of the University.
3. Whether the teachers were entitled to the same benefits as regular university teachers.
4. Whether the University could treat teachers of self-financing institutions differently from regular teachers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered various documents and precedents to arrive at its decision. These include:

Cases:

• Writ Appeal No.727 of 2011, High Court of Kerala – This case was relied upon by the appellants, where a similar issue was decided in favor of the teachers of the same self-financing institution. The Supreme Court had affirmed this decision.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 2(30) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985: This section defines “teachers of the University.”
• University Statutes: These statutes govern the service conditions of the University’s teachers.

Authorities Considered

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Writ Appeal No.727 of 2011 [CITATION]: The Court followed this precedent, noting that a similar issue was decided in favor of teachers from the same institution and that the Supreme Court had affirmed this decision. This case was crucial in establishing consistency in the treatment of teachers from the same institution.
• Section 2(30) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 [CITATION]: The Court interpreted this section to include teachers of the self-financing institutions, emphasizing that the University could not treat them differently.
• University Statutes [CITATION]: The Court applied these statutes to the teachers of the self-financing institutions, stating that their appointment orders indicated that they were governed by these statutes.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors:

• Consistency in University’s Actions: The Court noted that the University had represented the teachers as permanent employees to AICTE and included the income of the self-financing institution in the University’s fund. These actions contradicted the University’s claim that the teachers were temporary.
• Nature of Appointment: The initial resolutions and appointment orders did not specify that the posts were temporary. The Court emphasized that the appointments were made through a regular selection process.
• Precedent: The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Writ Appeal No.727 of 2011, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, to ensure consistency in the treatment of teachers from the same institution.
• Lack of Justification: The Court found no valid reason to treat teachers of self-financing institutions differently from regular teachers, especially since they were appointed against substantive posts through a regular selection process.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s logical reasoning for each issue can be summarized as follows:

The Court rejected the University’s arguments that the self-financing nature of the institution justified treating the teachers differently. The Court emphasized that the University could not dissociate itself from the College of Engineering and that the teachers were appointed against substantive posts through a regular selection process. The Court also noted that the University’s actions, such as representing the teachers as permanent employees to AICTE, contradicted its claim that they were temporary employees.

The Court’s decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, the relevant legal provisions, and the precedents. The Court considered the arguments of both sides and ultimately concluded that the teachers of the self-financing institution were entitled to the same benefits as regular university teachers.

The court stated:

“The facts on record indicate that the appointments of the appellants were on permanent basis and that they were appointed through regular selection process.”

“The University cannot dissociate itself and claim said University college of Engineering under the School of Technical and Applied Sciences to be otherwise than part of the University.”

“We have gone through the record in its entirety, which record, in our view, points completely in the direction of the appellants and in their favour.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

The implications of this judgment are significant for teachers in self-financing institutions across India. It establishes that if teachers are appointed through a regular selection process against substantive posts, they are entitled to the same benefits as regular university teachers, regardless of the funding model of the institution. This decision may lead to similar claims from teachers in other self-financing institutions, potentially requiring universities to re-evaluate their employment policies.

Key Takeaways

• Teachers appointed in self-financing institutions through regular selection processes are to be treated as regular employees.
• Universities cannot deny benefits to teachers of self-financing institutions if they are appointed against substantive posts.
• The source of funding for an institution does not determine the status of its teachers.
• Universities must ensure consistency in their actions and representations regarding the employment status of their teachers.
• This judgment may lead to similar claims from teachers in other self-financing institutions.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and orders under appeal, and restored the order dated 08.01.2014 passed by the Single Judge in O.P.(Civil) No.3818 of 2013. This means that the teachers were declared to be regularly appointed permanent teachers of the University and were entitled to subsequent pay revision benefits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that teachers appointed in self-financing institutions affiliated with a university, who are appointed against substantive posts through a regular selection process, are to be treated as regular employees of the university and are entitled to the same benefits as regular university teachers. This decision clarifies the legal position for teachers in self-financing institutions and ensures that they are not discriminated against based on the funding model of their institutions. This decision also reinforces the principle that universities cannot dissociate themselves from self-financing institutions that are part of the university system.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Abdul Hakeem M.A. & Ors. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. is a significant victory for teachers in self-financing institutions. The Court held that these teachers, if appointed against substantive posts through a regular selection process, are entitled to the same benefits as regular university teachers. This decision ensures that teachers are not discriminated against based on the funding model of their institutions and reinforces the principle of equal treatment for all teachers within the university system. The judgment provides clarity on the status of teachers in self-financing institutions and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.