K. RAGUPATHI VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

K. RAGUPATHI VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3913  OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9214  of 2022]

[@Diary No. 17212 of 2020]

K. RAGUPATHI                ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The   appellant­K.   Ragupathi   has   approached   this

Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23rd May

2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

thereby dismissing the writ petition being Writ­A No. 51962

of   2014   filed   by   the   appellant,   thereby   challenging   the

communication of the respondent No.3 ­ Registrar, Gautam

Buddha University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter

1

referred to as the “said University”) dated 12th August 2014

informing   the   appellant   that   his   services   stands

discontinued.

4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are

as under:

In   response   to   the   advertisement   issued   by   the

respondent No.3, the appellant had applied to the post of

Senior   Scientific   Officer.     After   undergoing   due   selection

process, the appellant came to be selected and appointed as

Senior   Scientific   Officer   on   contractual   basis   in   the   said

University vide its order dated 3rd  August 2011.   The said

appointment was initially for a period of two years.   The

appellant’s services were extended for another period of one

year by the said University vide its order dated 7th  August

2013.   However, vide communication of the said University

dated 12th August 2014, the appellant was informed that the

period of his contractual appointment had expired on 11th

August 2014 and he was directed to complete the formalities

regarding relieving from the service.  Being aggrieved thereby,

the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad by filing writ petition being Writ­A No. 51962 of

2

2014.   Vide the impugned order dated 23rd  May 2018, the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the said

writ petition.  Hence, the present appeal.

5. We   have   heard   the   appellant­in­person   and   Shri

Vibhav Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

6. The appellant has submitted that he was appointed

after following the due selection process, and as such, his

services could not have been terminated without holding an

enquiry.   He   further   submitted   that   though   vide

communication   of   the   said   University   dated   12th  August

2014,   the   appellant   has   been   relieved,   in   effect   it   would

amount to punitive termination.  He further submitted that

the   aforesaid   communication   is   passed   in   a  mala   fide

manner.

7. Shri   Mishra,   on   the  contrary,  submitted  that  the

appellant’s   appointment   was   purely   contractual,   and   as

such, the appellant did not have any right to continue in

service   after   the   expiry   of   the   contractual   period.     He

therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in the

3

impugned   order   of   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at

Allahabad.  

8. Shri   Mishra   further   submitted   that   since   the

appellant was indulging into certain activities, which were

detrimental   to   the   interest   of   the   said   University,   it   was

found that the appellant’s continuation in service was not in

the interest of the said University.

9. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part of the

supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said

University before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad:

“5.   That Clause (6) of the Amendment Act of

2008   substituted   Section   29(1)   of   the   Gautam

Budh University Act, 2002.  The amended Section

29(1) reads as under:

“(1)     Every   employee   in   the   first

instance   shall   be   appointed   under   a

written contract, which shall be lodged

by the University and the copy of which

shall   be   furnished   to   the   employee

concerned.”

6.  That consequent to the aforesaid amendment

made by the State of U.P., in the statute of the

Univesity,   it   is   obligatory   on   the   University   to

initially  appoint   employees  only on  contractual

basis.

4

7.  That it is also necessary to clarify at this stage

that even though the University is appointing its

employees on contractual basis, the method of

selection   and   thereafter   appointment   of   these

employees is the same as that which is followed

in   the   case   of   regular   appointment   of   its

employees.

8.   That   for   every  post  which   is   vacant   and

which   is   proposed   to   be   filled   up,   the

University   publishes   an   open   advertisement

inviting   applications   from   all   interested

candidates.  Applications so received are then

placed   before   a   duly   constituted   Selection

Committee,   which   holds   interviews   of   the

applicants/candidates   for   the   various   posts.

It   is   on   the   basis   of   the   recommendations

made   by   the   duly   constituted   Selection

Committee   that   appointment   letters

appointing the employees on contractual basis

are issued by the University.

9.   That  these  employees,  though  technically

appointed   on   contract,   get   all   benefits   and

allowances, as per the Rules applicable.   They

are placed in a regular pay­scale and extended

annual   increments,   leaves,   EPF/GPF

deductions/contributions   and   other   benefits.

But for permanency in tenure, their terms and

conditions   of   appointment   are   identical   to

those of any regularly appointed candidate.

10.   That it may be stated that since 2011, the

University has not regularized any candidate on a

teaching post.   All the teaching employees are

continuing on contractual basis.

11.     That   for   considering   regularization,   the

University is finalizing detailed guidelines.  These

guidelines have been approved by the Board of

5

Management   in   its   meeting   dated   18­5­2015.

These guidelines are pending approval from the

Board of Governors of the University, which is its

apex body.

12.   That  till such  time as the  guidelines  are

finally approved by the Board of Governors of the

University,   the   University   shall   not   be   in   a

position to regularize any of its employees.”

[emphasis supplied]

10. As per the affidavit of the said University, it could

thus clearly be seen that, for every vacant post, the said

University   publishes   an   open   advertisement   inviting

applications   from   all   the   interested   candidates.   It   would

further show that the appointments are made only after the

candidates are selected by the Selection Committee.   It is

thus   clear   that   though   the   nomenclature   given   to   the

appointment   is   contractual,   candidates   are   required   to

undergo the entire selection process.  It could further be seen

that as per the affidavit of the said University itself, though

the  employees  are  technically  appointed  on  a  contractual

basis, they get all the benefits and allowances as per the

Rules applicable.  The affidavit would further show that even

according to the said University, for permanency in tenure,

6

their terms and conditions of appointment are identical to

those of regularly appointed candidates.  

11. It is thus clear that the appellant was appointed

after he underwent the entire selection process.  Even as per

the University, though the appointment shows that it is on a

contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular

basis.  It could thus be seen that even for the appointment

on a contractual basis in the said University, a candidate is

required to undergo the entire selection process. Though he

is appointed on a contractual basis, his terms and conditions

are almost like a regular employee.  It will be relevant to note

that the Annual Performance Assessment Report (for short

“APAR”) of the appellant during the period 2012­13 show his

performance to be outstanding.  Every other parameter in his

APAR is shown as excellent.  With regard to his integrity, it is

mentioned   that   there   is   nothing   against   the   appellant

adversely reflecting his integrity.  It is further stated in his

APAR that he enjoys a good reputation and his integrity is

good.  

12. It will  be further relevant to  refer to the  counter

affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of respondent Nos.

7

2 to 4.  It is stated in paragraph (4) that the reasons for the

appellant not being continued in the service are at Annexure

P­9 (Page 116­120) and Annexure P­26 (Page 165­166).

13. Insofar as Annexure P­9 is concerned, it is an APAR

to which we have already referred hereinabove.  As such, the

same cannot be a ground for non­continuation of the services

of   the   appellant.   As   a   matter   of   fact,   thereafter,   the

appellant’s services have been continued for another one year

vide order dated 7th August 2013.  

14. Insofar   as   the   document   at   Annexure   P­26   is

concerned,   it   is   an   administrative   warning   issued   to   the

appellant by the Dean of the said University on 10th January

2014, which reads thus: 

“Office of Dean, Planning & Research

GBU­013 /Dplng/09/2014­21         Dated: 10/1/14

Administrative Warning

It has been observed that you write on files simply

"Put up file on such and such date". You have been

continuing to do this even after my several verbal

communications and warning against this. This is

not only against ethics and official decorum but also

against   administrative  norms.   In   response   to   my

objections   you   told   me   that   you   have   been

instructed   by   the   finance   officer   and   the   earlier

8

officiating registrar, Mr. Pankaj Sharma to do so.

You have put this noting even on dates when I have

been on leave. Photocopies of such recent notings

are being attached herewith as evidence. There is

also an overwriting in the date mentioned in one of

the   notings.   All   your   above   mentioned   activities

amount to gross irregularity in your work and also

expose your conspirational character. This definitely

makes   you   unfit   to   work   on   any   responsible

position. 

You are being served this warning in writing to

provide you an opportunity to improve your official

working and conduct. 

S/d 

Anuradha Mishra 

Dean P & R

CC: 

1. Registrar for information and record 

2. PS to Hon’ble Vice­Chancellor for information”

15. It   could   thus   be   seen   that   though   the

communication of the said University dated 12th August 2014

states that the appellant’s contractual period has expired, in

the facts of the present case, it would reveal that his services

were discontinued on account of the allegation made against

him by the Dean of the said University.  Since even according

to   the   said   University,   though   the   employment   was

contractual   but   the   employee   was   entitled   to   get   all   the

benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the

present case, the appellant’s services could not have been

9

terminated without following the principles of natural justice.

We therefore find that the present  appeal deserves to  be

allowed on this short ground.  

16. In the result, the impugned order dated 23rd  May

2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,

thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and

the communication passed by the said University dated 12th

August   2014,   thereby   discontinuing   the   services   of   the

appellant, are quashed and set aside.

17. The   appellant   is   directed   to   be   reinstated   with

continuity in service.  However, the appellant would not be

entitled to any back wages.  

18. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending

application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the above

terms.  No order as to costs. 

……..….......................J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…….........................J.       

[B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 12, 2022.

10