Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Maitreyee Chakraborty, was appointed as Assistant Professor in Law at Tripura University against a lien vacancy created by Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, who had taken a lien to join Sikkim University. The appointment letter stated that her service was liable to be terminated if the lien holder returned, but if the lien was vacated, her service may be continued with the approval of the Executive Council. Dr. Mishra resigned in September 2017, thereby vacating the lien. Despite this, the Executive Council in its 32nd meeting on 13.12.2018 decided not to confirm the appellant and to re-advertise the post, without any adverse remarks about her performance. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court, which dismissed her writ petition and appeal, holding that the University's decision to re-advertise was reasonable as many candidates might not have applied for a lien vacancy. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that once the lien was vacated, the appellant was entitled to regularization as per the terms of her appointment and the employment notice. The Court noted that the advertisement included a regular vacancy as well, and the appellant had been selected against the unreserved category. The Court set aside the Executive Council's resolution and directed the University to confirm the appellant in the post of Assistant Professor in Law with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Lien Vacancy - Regularization - Appointment against lien vacancy - Once the lien is vacated, the appointee is entitled to be considered for regularization if performance is satisfactory, as per the terms of the appointment letter and the employment notice. The Executive Council's decision to re-advertise the post without any adverse remark against the appellant was arbitrary and illegal. (Paras 1-14, 20-25) B) Service Law - Legitimate Expectation - Confirmation - The appellant had a legitimate expectation of regularization upon vacation of lien, as the appointment letter stated that her service may be continued further with approval of the Executive Council. The University's failure to confirm her and decision to re-advertise violated this expectation. (Paras 8-12, 20-25) C) Service Law - Executive Council - Discretion - The discretion of the Executive Council to confirm or re-advertise must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. In the absence of any adverse performance, the decision to re-advertise was unsustainable. (Paras 13-14, 20-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, appointed against a lien vacancy, is entitled to regularization upon the lien being vacated, and whether the Executive Council's decision to re-advertise the post instead of confirming her was legal and justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and the resolution of the Executive Council dated 13.12.2018, and directed the University to confirm the appellant in the post of Assistant Professor in Law with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Lien vacancy
- regularization
- legitimate expectation
- confirmation
- re-advertisement
- Executive Council discretion
- appointment terms
