Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Snehal Chandrashekhar Jani, was appointed as an Assistant Professor at Maharaja Krushnasinhji Bhavnagar University on 24.03.2013. The appointment order stipulated that her tenure would be up to 31.03.2018. However, on 02.04.2016, the university issued a notice terminating her services with immediate effect. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the termination notice and to continue in service. The court heard the parties and examined the facts. The petitioner argued that the termination was arbitrary and without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondent university contended that the appointment was contractual and the termination was in accordance with the terms. The court observed that the termination notice did not provide any reason nor did it afford any hearing to the petitioner. The court held that even if the appointment was contractual, the termination could not be effected without following the principles of natural justice. The court quashed the termination notice dated 02.04.2016 and directed the university to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages. However, the court declined to interfere with the original appointment order restricting tenure till 31.03.2018, as that was not challenged in time.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, was terminated by the respondent university without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The court held that the termination order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-7) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the termination notice dated 02.04.2016, as the same was issued without following due process. (Paras 2-7) C) Limitation - Challenge to Appointment Order - The petitioner did not challenge the original appointment order dated 24.03.2013 which restricted her tenure till 31.03.2018. The court noted that the challenge to that order was barred by delay and laches. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner's services by the respondent university without affording an opportunity of hearing is valid in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the termination notice dated 02.04.2016, and directed the respondent university to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages. However, the court declined to interfere with the original appointment order dated 24.03.2013 restricting tenure till 31.03.2018.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- termination without notice or hearing
- writ of mandamus
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
