LexMAITREYEE CHAKRABORTY versus THE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 854 : 2024 INSC 616 Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2024) 22 August 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration An offer of appointment was made offering the Appellant the post of Assistant Professor in Law (UR) against lien vacancy. Whether the Respondent-University was justified in resolving on 13.12.2018 at the 32nd Meeting in Agenda No.18/32/2018, that the Appellant was not to be confirmed and that the post was to be re-advertised. Headnotes† Service Law – Lien Vacancy – Appointment not confirmed – Appellant was expecting her regularization since there was nothing adverse in her performance – In the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018, vide Agenda 18/32/2018, while other teachers working in their respective posts were confirmed, the appellant was not confirmed and the Executive Council resolved to re-advertise the post – Propriety: Held: The Appellant went through the normal process of selection – The employment notice set out that appointments made to the posts against LIEN vacancies are likely to be regularized subject to vacation of lien and satisfactory performance – The lien admittedly got vacated – The performance has been satisfactory as nothing adverse had been pointed out and the Appellant is discharging the duties for more than seven years – While approving the panel of names also it was clearly mentioned that in case the candidate at Serial No.1 did not accept the offer, the Appellant was to be accommodated against the regular vacancy – This clearly demonstrates that all the applicants competed for the regular post also and no one from the open market could have been prejudiced – Most importantly, the offer of appointment also stated that in case the lien was vacated, the Appellant’s service was to be continued further with the approval of the Executive Council of the University – In this background, the University was not * Author [2024] 8 S.C.R. 855 Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors. justified in denying her confirmation when all the contingencies were cleared with the vacation of the lien and the performance being satisfactory – The Respondent-University, being a statutory body, any such conduct would tantamount to an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power, apart from being unfair – The discretion vested in the Executive Council should be exercised in a fair and non-arbitrary manner – The representations in the employment notice, the Resolution of the Executive Council and the appointment order did give rise to a legitimate expectation to the Appellant that in the event of the lien being vacated, the appellant would be continued in service and regularized in the said post – The only condition was that it will need the approval of the Executive Council – Thus, the Resolution in Agenda No.18/32/2018 of the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018 insofar as it records that the Appellant is not confirmed in service and that the post should be re-advertised is set aside. [Paras 26, 27, 31] Case Law Cited Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others [2023] 11 SCR 674 : (2024) 3 SCC 799 – followed. Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr. [2021] 6 SCR 49 : (2021) 10 SCC 116; Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors., 2024 INSC 303; Ram Pravesh Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2006] Supp. 6 SCR 512 : (2006) 8 SCC 381; Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 322 : (1993) 1 SCC 71 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Service Law; Lien vacancy; Regularization; Arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power; Legitimate expectation. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2022 of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in WA No. 5 of 2020 856 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Ghanshyam Joshi, Chirag Joshi, Advs. for the Appellant. Sujeet Kumar, Rajeev K. Tiwari, Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K.V. Viswanathan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala dated 20.06.2022 in W.A. No. 5 of 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.