DR. SURESH CHANDRA VERMA AND ORS. versus CHANCELLOR, NAGPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 21-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. SURESH CHANDRA VERMA AND ORS. 
v. 
CHANCELLOR, NAGPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 1990 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Service 
Law: Nagpur 
University Act, 
1974: Sections 32, 
57(4)(a), 57(5), 67 and 76. 
University Teaching staff-Employment notice inviting applica-
tions-Reservation category-wise not post-wise/subject-wise-Validity 
of~Court's interpretation of Rule-Declaration of that interpretation as 
bad-Effect of-From the beginning-Validity of termination orders. 
Administrative Law: Natural justice_Audi alterem partem-
Sevices terminated due to change in law-Not on merits and/or 
misdemeanour-Whether hearing before termination necessary. 
Practice and Procedure: Judicial decision-Overruling-Conse-
quences of---Whether operates retrospectively-Value of precedent. 
Words & Phrases: "Post"-Meaning of. 
The respondent University issued an employment notice inviting 
applications for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in diffe-
rent subjects. Tbe notice mentioned the number of. reservations 
_ 
category-wise, but not subject-wise. Including the petitioners, a number of 
- , 
candidates belonging to both reserved and non-reserved categories 
-
-,.._ 
' applied. Selection Committees were constituted which recommended 47 
candidates for 53 posts; weightage was given to candidates belonging to 
l 
the reserved category. Thereafter, the Executive Council constituted a 
r-
sub-Committee to decide which posts should be reserved. On its recom-
mendations and on consideration of the backlog of reservations, the 
Executive Council decided to set apart 17 posts and gave permanent 
appointments only to 30 candidates. It also decided that in respect of the 
17 posts reserved, temporary appointments would be made pending the 
availability of suitable candidates from the reserved category. 
On receipt of some representations expressing grievances against 
the employment notice as also the procedure followed in makin~ the 
appointments, the Chancellor appointed a one-man Committee to in-
883 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
quire into the matter. The Committee submitted its report which was 
accepted by the Chancellor. 
\ 
Meanwhile, a batch o~ writ petitions was filed in the High Court 
challenging the employment notice on the ground that the non-obtain-
ing of the recommendation from the Board of University Teaching and 
B 
Research before issuing the employment notice was bad in law in view 
of the provisions of Section 32(2)(iii) of the Act. The High Court 
quashed the employment notice and set aside the appointments made to 
_.;<. 
the posts. It also restrained the University from making any appoint-
ment withont obtaining the recommendations as aforesaid. 
c 
Taking into consideration the report of the one-man committee 
-
and the decision of the High Court, the Chancellor directed the Vice-
Chancellor to terminate the services of all the appointees including the 
appellants. Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor issued orders of termina-
.--J._ 
tion of the services of the appellants and other similarly appointed. 
Although the services were thus terminated, the Vice-Chancellor on the 
D same day issued another order in exercise of his emergency powers 
under Section 11(4) of the Act and appointed all the appellants and 
others to the same posts protecting their pay and allowances and mak-
ing it clear to the appointments were temporary. 
However the matter went before a Full Bench since one Division • 
E Bench took the view that post-wise reservation was not necessary, and 
": 
another Division Bench differed from it. The Full Bench held that gen-
eral reservations were in breach of the provisions of the Act and against 
reservation policy and hence illegal. It also held that since the appoint-
-
ments were not in accordance with law from the beginning, the termina-
,--· 
4: 
ti on of the appellants' services was legal. 
F 
Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeal 
-< 
against the decision of the Full Bench. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
G 
HELD: I. The employment notice dated July 27, 1984 was bad in 
law since it bad failed to notify the reservations of the posts subject-wise 
and had mentioned only the total number of reserved posts without 
indicating the particnlar posts so reserved subject-wise. [893G] 
l 
2. The word "post" used in S. S7(4)(a) oftbe Nagpur University 
H Act, 1974 bas a relation to the faculty, discipline, or t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.