VICE CHANCELLOR, M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK versus JAHAN SINGH

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VICE CHANCELLOR, M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHT AK 
v. 
JAHAN SINGH 
MARCH 8, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Increments during extra-ordinary leave-Respondent-Reader in 
C Appellant University-Terminated from service during probation-He applied 
for teaching assignment in Foreign University-Received offer and accepted 
same-Appellant University re-appointed Respondent-Respondent availed 
extra-ordinary leave without pay for two years in view of the foreign 
assignment-Re-joined after two years-Claim for increments during period 
D of extra-ordinary1 /eave-Entitlement to-Held: Not entitled, as under the 
University Leave Regulations. increment available only if extra-ordinary• 
leave granted on "invitation "-No such invitation made to Respondent who 
applied for the foreign assignment himself-Respondent was not even in the 
service of Appellant University while maki~g the application-Maharishi 
Dayanand University Act, 197 5-Leave Regulations framed under-Regulation 
E 26(ii)(c). 
Administrative Law: 
Delegated legislation-Leave Regulations framed under the Maharishi 
Dayanand University Act, I975-Amendments in, by Executive Council of the 
F University-With retrospective effect-Validity-Held, not valid, since the 
University Act did not confer any power on the Executive Council to make 
regulation with retrospective effect. 
· 
Constitution of India, I 950-Article 14-Cannot be invoked for 
G perpetuating illegality. 
H 
Respondent-Reader in Appellant University was terminated from service 
during probation. He applied for teaching assignment in a Foreign University 
(University of Zambia). In response Respondent received offer which he 
accepted. Appellant University re-appointed Respondent who after joining duty 
676 
t 
' 
• 
. ' 
~ 
\ 
~ 
t-
VICE CHANCELLOR, M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK 1·. JAHAN SINGH 
677 
availed extra-ordinary leave without pay fot:tW~y~~rs in view of the said foreign A 
assignment. After two years, Respondent re-joined Appellant University and 
claimed grant of increments during period of extra-ordinary leave. Executive 
Council of the Appellant University resolved to amend the University Leave 
Regulations with retrospective effect thereby proposing to grant the benefit 
of increments during the period of extra-ordinary leave. However the said B 
resolution of the Executive Council was not acted upon and Appellant 
.. 
University ultimately declined the request for increments during the period 
of extra-ordinary leave in view of the objections raised by the State 
" 
Government. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether in terms of the extant leave Regulations framed under the Maharishi 
Dayanand University Act, 1975, Respondent was entitled to annual increments 
during the period of extra-ordina~y leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The case of the Respondent is not even covered by the leave 
regulations framed under the Maharishi Dayanand University Act, 1975. 
[Para 30] 1685-f] 
2. The appointment of the Respondent would be treated to be a fresh 
appointment and not a continuing one. His services having been terminated 
during the period of probation, even no re-appointment was permissible in 
law. (Para 16) (682-A-B) 
3. The University is a creature of statute. It was created under the 
Maharishi Dayanand University Act, 1975. The said Act provides for the 
regulations making power. The Act does not confer any power on the Executive 
Council of the University to make a regulation with retrospective effect. The 
purported regulations, thus, could not have been given retrospective effect or 
retro-active operation as it is now well-settled that in absence of any provision 
contained in the legislative Act, a delegatee cannot make a delegated 
legislation with retrospective effect. The retrospective operation purported to 
have been given by the Executive Council is ultra vi res the Act. In any event, 
the said purported resolution appears to be vague, inasmuch as it does not lay 
down as to from which date, the said amended regulation would come into effect. 
No retrospective operation could also be given having regard to the fact that 
thereby the rights of other employees of the University could not have been 
taken away. Furthermore, the State has declined to grant such benefits to the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20071 3 S.C.R. 
A respondent. It was on that premise the purported offer made by the U

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