S C SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1075 · Decided: 05-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1075
S C SINGH
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11856 of 2018)
DECEMBER 05, 2018
[U. U. LALIT AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law – University-Second respondent passed
resolution terminating College Development Council (CDC) –
Challenged by the appellant-Director of CDC – High Court quashed
the resolution directing that while the CDC will continue, it will be
without the Appellant as its Director – Plea of appellant that the
tenure limitation for two terms of three years can only apply to those
Directors appointed on deputation – Held: Terms of the
advertisement issued by the University calling for applications for
the posts in the newly constituted CDC are material – Appellant
was put to notice that his appointment was for three years – Though
the office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director,
CDC does not mention a tenure, however, it cannot be said that the
Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post of
Director, CDC was for three years – Appointment was in terms of
the advertisement – Further, Clause 3 of the ‘Revised Guidelines
for the Establishment of College Development Council’ deals with
the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC –
Merely because in the said clause, the sentence providing for tenure
limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, it cannot be said
that the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists – Tenure
limitation applies to every person who is appointed to the post –
Having served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the
Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The terms of the advertisement issued by the
University calling for applications for the posts in the newly
constituted CDC are material. The Appellant was put to notice
that his appointment was for a period of three years. Though the
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1075
1075
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1076                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director,
CDC does not mention a tenure, it cannot be said that the
Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post
of Director, CDC was for a period of three years. The appointment
was in terms of the advertisement. [Para 9][1079-E-H]
1.2 The Clause 3 of the ‘Revised Guidelines for the
Establishment of College Development Council’  deals with the
appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC.  When
the clause is read as a whole, the word “he” is used to indicate
the pay scale and the tenure of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of
the CDC. The sentence on deputationists is merely to provide
that those persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation
allowance and other permissible allowances. 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 Appellant has
admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms
of three years each. Having served the tenure laid down by the
revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director,
CDC. [Paras 12, 13][1080-E-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11856
of 2018.
From the final Order dated 28.12.2011 of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.429 of 2006 (S/B).
With
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 196/2014 in S.L.P. (Civil) No.10084
of 2012.
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Rakesh Kumar
Tewari, Krishna Kant Dubey, Devendra Kumar Shukla, Shuchi Singh,
Kapish Seth, Satish Vig, Advs. for the Appellant.
Jatinder Kumar Sethi, DAG, Rajiv Nanda, Dr. Kartidey Hari Gupta,
Vinodh Kanna B., M. B. Ramasubnba Raju, Somyashree Kulkarni,
V. Sudeer, Balaji Srinivasan, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1077
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal in the present case arises from the judgment of a
Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 28 December
20111. The High Court quashed a Resolution dated 29 July 2006, being
Resolution No. 23 of the 76th General Meeting of the Executive Council
of the Second Respondent2. By that resolution, the Coll

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