LexTHE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER, ETC. versus DR. ANURIKA VAISH AND OTHERS, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 691 THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, A DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER, ETC. v. DR. ANURIKA YAISH AND OTHERS, ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4406-4418of2017) MARCH 24, 2017 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Service Law - Appointment - Cancellation by Board of Management - Termination of teachers - Writ petition before High Court - On 11. 12.20I 5, High Court set aside the order of termination leaving it open to the Board to take fresh decision after affording opportunity to the writ petitioners - Appellant-Institute again unilaterally took certain decisions and issued SCN to the teachers as to why their appointment should not be cancelled - Some teachers challenged the SCNs and the High Court stayed those SCNs - At this stage, appellant challenged the judgment dated 11. I 2.20I 5 and interim orders - Held: The decision to cancel the appointments was based on a status report which was not furnished to the affected teachers - High Court, therefore, rightly found that the decision taken by the appellant-Institute was in violation of the principles of natural justice - Matter remitted to Institute for decision afresh in accordance with law - Directions passed. ,. · Disposing of the appeals and contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1. The whole ill-advised exercise undertaken by the appellant-Institute only led to unnecessary litigation. In the judgment dated 11.12.2015, the High Court had set aside Resolution at Item No.16 of the Eighth Board Meeting. The decision to cancel the appointments was based on a Status Report which was not furnished to the affected teachers. The High Court, therefore, found that the decision taken by the appellant-Institute was in violation of the principles of natural justice. And thereafter, the High Conrt gave liberty to the appellant to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, that is to say, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected teachers. The appellants ought to have made available a copy of the Status Report discussed in the Eighth Board Meeting which led to cancellation of their 691 B c D E F H 692 A B c D E •· F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 3 S.C.R. appointments and should have afforded an opportunity of making a representation and hearing. The appellant-Institute rather took several other steps. [Paras 6, 7)(695-H; 696-A-C] 2. The matter is remitted to the Institute with a direction to start the process from the stage of the judgment of the High Court dated 11.12.2015. The appellant-Institute shall serve a . copy of the Status Report discussed in the Eighth Board Meeting to the affected teachers forthwith and also provide a further period of two weeks for making a fresh representation. On receipt of the representations, the affected teachers shall be given an opportunity of hearing on all the aspects referred to in the Status Report and on the reasons for termination as referred to in the Eighth Board Meeting. Thereafter, the Board shall take a fresh decision in the case of each individual in accordance with law. The only notice which the teachers could have been issued is on the basis of the consideration in the Eighth Board Meeting and not thereafter. The Status Report considered by the Eighth Board Meeting and the decision taken by the Eighth Board Meeting shall be treated as show-cause notice by the affected teachers. The decisions in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Board Meetings, as far as the further course of action for implementation of the judgment dated 11.12.2015 is concerned, are wholly unwarranted and are set aside. Since the cancellation of appointment and consequential termination have been set aside by the High Court in the judgment dated 11.12.2015, the teachers concerned are deemed to be in service under law until a fresh decision is taken as per the judgment. In case any of the teachers has been working elsewhere or has been working in a different ca11acity in the Institute, such teachers shall not be entitled to the benefit of the above declaration. Their fate will be dependent on the fresh decision, which is to be taken by the appellant. The appellant- Institute shall take a fresh decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representations from the affected teachers. [Para 8](696-D, E-H; 697-A-B, E-F) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4406- 4418 of2017. From the Judgment and Orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.