Summary
The Court recognised pharmacy teachers recruited through the statutory selection process as substantively appointed members of HNB Garhwal University’s teaching service. Contractual three-year conditions first inserted in their appointment letters did not defeat that status, and acceptance under unequal bargaining conditions did not bar challenge. Following conversion to a Central University and approval of the posts, the teachers were entitled to the applicable pay scale and notional consequential benefits. Their appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the contempt petitions closed.
Issues
- Whether teachers selected through the statutory process could be treated as merely contractual because of conditions subsequently inserted in appointment letters.
- Whether acceptance of those conditions barred challenge and whether the teachers were entitled to substantive status after conversion to a Central University.
Provisions considered
- Sections 21(1)(vii) and 31(1), (4), read with Chapter VI, Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973Selection by the statutory committee followed by Executive Council approval established the substantive character of the appointments in these circumstances. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 49)
- Section 4(d), including provisos, Central Universities Act, 2009The conversion scheme protected existing employees’ service interests; the teachers’ valid appointments and subsequent sanction of posts supported their membership of the Central University’s service. (¶¶ 38, 39, 41, 50, 51, 52)
Held
- The teachers had responded to advertisements for regular selection, satisfied the qualifications and undergone the prescribed statutory process. Contractual limitations were disclosed only in appointment letters after selection and approval; these conditions did not alter the substantive character of their appointments. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 49)
- Acceptance of employment terms did not estop these employees from challenging conditions inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The employer held the bargaining power, the teachers needed employment, and they had protested the conditions when joining. (¶¶ 12, 13, 37, 42, 43, 44)
- A substantive appointment under the prescribed selection scheme was distinguishable from an ad hoc appointment. Its substantive character did not depend solely on whether the post was then temporary or permanent; permanence could follow sanction by the competent authority. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49)
- The posts had been duly sanctioned and approved, and the University acknowledged that the incumbents satisfied the qualifications and statutory selection requirements. They were therefore to be treated as appointed against those posts and as members of the Central University’s teaching faculty. (¶¶ 19, 20, 38, 39, 41, 50, 51)
- The High Court judgment was set aside. The appellants were declared substantively appointed Associate Professors or Assistant Professors, entitled to the applicable pay scale and notional consequential benefits of regularly appointed Central University teachers. The contempt petitions were closed. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; substantive teaching-service status, applicable pay scale and notional consequential benefits granted; contempt petitions closed.