LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the tenure limitation of two terms of three years for the Director of the College Development Council (CDC) applies only to those appointed on a deputation basis or to all appointees.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: S C Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Judgment Date: 05 December 2018
Date of the Judgment: 05 December 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 1073
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a university employee continue as the Director of the College Development Council (CDC) after serving two terms of three years each? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law dispute. The core issue was whether the tenure limitation for the Director of the CDC, as per the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines, applies only to those appointed on deputation or to all appointees, including those who were later absorbed permanently. The Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the High Court’s decision that the tenure limitation applies to all appointees, regardless of their initial mode of appointment. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with Uday Umesh Lalit, J, concurring.
Case Background
The case revolves around the appointment and subsequent tenure of the Appellant, S C Singh, as the Director of the College Development Council (CDC) at Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University. Initially, the University sought to establish a CDC with the financial backing of the Uttar Pradesh government. The government agreed to cover the expenses of the Director’s post after March 31, 1995. The University Grants Commission (UGC) approved the establishment of the CDC with two posts: a Director and a stenographer.
The Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC through an open selection process on November 2, 1992 and was permanently absorbed on January 23, 1996. In 2003, the University shifted the CDC office from Srinagar to Dehradun, which the Appellant challenged. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, leading to his suspension, which was later revoked. The University then sought to abolish the CDC, claiming it was not legally created and lacked government financial support.
The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed the University’s resolution to abolish the CDC, but also ruled that the Appellant could not continue as Director after serving two three-year terms, as per the UGC guidelines. This ruling is the subject of the present appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 31 October 1991 | Government of Uttar Pradesh agreed to bear expenses for Director, CDC after 31 March 1995. |
| 07 November 1991 | UGC agreed to the University’s request to set up a CDC with two posts. |
| 06 January 1992 | Advertisement issued for the posts of Director and Stenographer in CDC. |
| 02 November 1992 | Appellant appointed as Director, CDC. |
| 23 January 1996 | Appellant was permanently absorbed. |
| 2003 | University shifted the office of the CDC from Srinagar to Dehradun. |
| 09 December 2005 | University transferred the Appellant to the Swami Ramtirth Campus, New Tehri. |
| 30 June 2006 | Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Appellant, and he was suspended. |
| 10 July 2006 | Order of suspension was stayed by the High Court. |
| 19 July 2006 | High Court disposed of the writ petition by revoking the suspension, subject to the Appellant joining service at Srinagar. |
| 29 July 2006 | University passed a resolution to abolish the post of CDC. |
| 28 December 2011 | High Court of Uttarakhand quashed the resolution to abolish the CDC, but held that the Appellant cannot continue as Director. |
Course of Proceedings
The Appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the transfer of the CDC office. Subsequently, after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was suspended, the High Court revoked the suspension but did not stay the disciplinary proceedings. The University then resolved to abolish the CDC. The Appellant filed a writ petition challenging this resolution. The High Court quashed the resolution to abolish the CDC, but held that the Appellant could not continue as Director after serving two three-year terms. The High Court directed the University to adjust the Appellant as mentioned in the resolution to abolish the CDC. This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of College Development Council in Universities’ issued by the UGC. Clause 3 of these guidelines, which is central to the dispute, states:
“He may be appointed on a tenure basis for three years, extendable for another term of three years, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire.”
The High Court interpreted this clause to mean that the tenure limitation applies to all Directors of the CDC, regardless of whether they were initially appointed on deputation or not. The Supreme Court examined this interpretation in light of the arguments presented.
Arguments
The Appellant argued that the tenure limitation of two terms of three years, as per Clause 3 of the revised guidelines, applies only to those Directors appointed on a deputation basis. The Appellant contended that since his initial appointment order did not mention that he was appointed on deputation or on a tenure basis and he was later absorbed permanently, the tenure limitation should not apply to him. The Appellant relied on the principle of ejusdem generis, suggesting that the tenure limitation should be read in the context of the preceding sentence about deputationists.
The Respondent University argued that the Appellant was aware that his appointment was for a tenure of three years, as specified in the advertisement. They contended that the tenure limitation of two terms of three years applies to the post of Director, CDC, and therefore, the Appellant could not continue in the post after serving two terms.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Tenure limitation applies only to deputationists. |
|
| Respondent University’s Submission: Tenure limitation applies to the post of Director, CDC. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the tenure limitation of two terms of three years in Clause 3 of the revised guidelines applies only to those Directors appointed on a deputation basis or to all appointees to the post of Director of the College Development Council.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists? | No, the tenure limitation applies to all appointees. | The clause deals with the appointment of the Director, and the sentence on deputationists is merely to provide for allowances. The tenure limitation applies to every person appointed to the post. |
Authorities
The Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Clause 3 of the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of College Development Council in Universities’ issued by the UGC. The relevant portion of Clause 3 is:
“3. The Coordinator/Director/Dean of the College Development Council may be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Selection Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, as Chairman, a nominee of the UGC, and a nominee of the Syndicate of the University. He may be appointed in the scale of Rs. 1500-2500 plus other admissible allowances as per university rules. Persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation and other permissible allowances. He may be appointed on a tenure basis for three years, extendable for another term of three years, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire.”
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Clause 3 of the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of College Development Council in Universities’ issued by the UGC | The Court interpreted this clause to mean that the tenure limitation applies to all Directors of the CDC, regardless of whether they were initially appointed on deputation or not. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the tenure limitation of two terms of three years applies to all appointees to the post of Director of the College Development Council (CDC), and not just to those appointed on deputation.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Tenure limitation applies only to deputationists. | Rejected. The Court held that the tenure limitation applies to all appointees to the post of Director, CDC. |
| Respondent University’s Submission: Tenure limitation applies to the post of Director, CDC. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the tenure limitation applies to the post and the Appellant had served his tenure. |
The Court considered the advertisement issued on 06 January 1992, which stated that “The tenure of the Director, College Development Council will be for 3 years“. The Court noted that the Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for three years.
The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the tenure limitation should apply only to deputationists. The Court reasoned that the clause deals with the appointment of the Director, and the sentence on deputationists is merely to provide for allowances. The Court stated that, “The clause read as a whole, deals with the conditions for the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Hence, it cannot be held that merely because the sentence providing for a tenure limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to every person who is appointed to the post.”
The Court noted that the Appellant had served two terms of three years each and therefore, could not continue as Director, CDC.
The Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
The contempt petition was dismissed as a consequence of the dismissal of the appeal.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the UGC guidelines and the terms of the advertisement issued by the University. The Court emphasized the importance of reading the clause as a whole, rather than focusing on a single sentence in isolation. The Court also considered the fact that the Appellant was aware of the tenure limitation, as specified in the advertisement.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Clause 3 of UGC Guidelines | 40% |
| Terms of the Advertisement | 30% |
| Appellant’s Service of Two Terms | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Key Takeaways
- The tenure limitation for the Director of the College Development Council (CDC) applies to all appointees, regardless of whether they were initially appointed on deputation or not.
- Universities must adhere to the tenure limitations specified in the UGC guidelines for the appointment of Directors of CDCs.
- Employees cannot claim a right to continue in a post after serving the specified tenure, even if they were later absorbed permanently.
Directions
The High Court directed the University to complete the adjustment of the Appellant as mentioned in Resolution No. 23 of the 76th General Meeting of the Executive Council.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court clarified that the tenure limitation for the post of Director, CDC, applies to all appointees, irrespective of their initial mode of appointment. This clarifies the interpretation of the UGC guidelines and provides a clear position of law on the matter. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the tenure limitation applies to all appointees to the post of Director, CDC.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the tenure limitation for the Director of the College Development Council (CDC) applies to all appointees, not just those on deputation. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the UGC guidelines and the terms of appointment. The appeal was dismissed, and the contempt petition was also disposed of.