Summary
The Supreme Court held that Tripura University acted arbitrarily in refusing, without reasons, to confirm an Assistant Professor appointed through regular selection against a lien vacancy and in re-advertising the post once the lien-holder resigned, since the advertisement, Executive Council resolution and appointment order promised continuation on vacation of the lien and satisfactory performance. Her legitimate expectation was not outweighed by any public interest, and the Court directed that her confirmation be considered in line with its findings.
Issues
- Whether the University was justified in resolving not to confirm the appellant and to re-advertise the post after the lien was vacated.
- Whether the High Court was right that re-advertisement was needed because eligible candidates would have stayed away from a lien vacancy.
- Whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation of confirmation, and what relief she should get.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe Court held that a statutory university's refusal to confirm, without reasons, an appointee who had cleared regular selection and met every stated condition was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. Following Mehar Fatima Hussain, it treated discontinuing such an incumbent in favour of fresh selection as unjust and arbitrary. (¶¶ 27, 29, 30)
Held
- The courts below wrongly assumed that only a lien vacancy was advertised. The common advertisement included a regular unreserved post, every applicant competed for it, and the panel provided that the appellant would take the regular post if the first candidate declined; so no eligible candidate could have been deterred and no one was prejudiced. (¶¶ 4, 7, 24, 26)
- Clause 19 of the employment notice said lien appointees were likely to be regularised on vacation of the lien and satisfactory performance, and the appointment order provided for continuation with Executive Council approval. With the lien vacated and nothing adverse recorded against the appellant, a resolution stating only 'as per rules not confirmed', without reasons, was arbitrary; the liberty reserved in the appointment order cannot be exercised by whim. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- A discretion vested in a statutory body's Executive Council must be exercised fairly and non-arbitrarily, and the body must have good reasons to justify it when challenged; the University had none. (¶ 27)
- Following Somesh Thapliyal and Mehar Fatima Hussain, an incumbent appointed through regular selection who holds the required qualification should be continued rather than replaced through fresh selection; absent material showing unsatisfactory performance, fair exercise of power required the appellant's confirmation. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
- The representations in the employment notice, the Executive Council resolution and the appointment order created a legitimate expectation of continuation and regularisation on vacation of the lien. Under Ram Pravesh Singh and Sivanandan C.T., the appellant was entitled to an explanation for its denial; the claimed interest of non-applicants was no overriding public interest, and the absence of any acceptable explanation was an additional ground for relief. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench, the Executive Council resolution of 13/12/2018 (so far as it refused confirmation and directed re-advertisement) and the Registrar's letter of 06/02/2019 set aside; mandamus to place the appellant's case for confirmation before the Executive Council and pass orders in line with the judgment within four weeks, with all consequential benefits; no costs.