Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, the Principal and Chairman of Rizvi College of Arts, Science and Commerce, challenged the judgment and order dated 29 June 2001 of the Bombay University and College Tribunal. The Tribunal had quashed the termination orders dated 19 April 1999 of respondent No.1, Dr. Mrs. Reshmi Tyagi, who was appointed as a full-time lecturer in Chemistry on probation basis from 4 September 1997. The college alleged that her performance was poor and terminated her services. The Tribunal found that the college did not follow the assessment procedure under University Statute 422, which required maintaining an assessment form (Appendix-D2) and giving an opportunity to the employee to improve. The High Court, after examining the letters and the assessment forms, held that the college had not properly assessed the respondent's work as per the statute and had not given her an opportunity to show cause. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order of reinstatement with 50% backwages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probationary Appointment - Termination - University Statute 422 - Assessment of Work - The termination of a probationary lecturer was challenged on the ground that the college did not follow the prescribed procedure under University Statute 422 for assessment of work and did not provide an opportunity to show cause. The Tribunal quashed the termination and ordered reinstatement with 50% backwages. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the assessment was not done in accordance with the statute and the termination was invalid. (Paras 1-10)
B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Probationary Employee - Even a probationary employee is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before termination if the termination is based on unsatisfactory performance. The court held that the college's failure to give an opportunity to show cause violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a probationary lecturer without following the prescribed assessment procedure under University Statute 422 and without giving an opportunity of hearing is valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal's order dated 29 June 2001, directing reinstatement of respondent No.1 with 50% backwages.
Law Points
- Probationary appointment
- Termination of probation
- University Statute 422
- Assessment of work
- Opportunity of hearing
- Natural justice
- Bombay University Act 1974
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 4
Writ Petition No. 4051 of 2001
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh with Mr. Mahesh Mishra and Mr. Amit T. Dubey i/b Mr. Ravi Thankaian, for the Petitioners. Mr. Sunil D. Dighe, for Respondent No.1.
The Principal, Rizvi College Of Arts, Science and Commerce & Anr.
(Dr.) Mrs. Reshmi Tyagi & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order of the Bombay University and College Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the Tribunal's order which directed reinstatement of respondent No.1 with 50% backwages.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order on the ground that the termination of probationary appointment was valid and the Tribunal erred in interfering.
Previous Decisions
The Bombay University and College Tribunal by judgment dated 29 June 2001 quashed the termination orders dated 19.4.1999 and directed reinstatement with 50% backwages.
Issues
Whether the termination of a probationary lecturer without following the prescribed assessment procedure under University Statute 422 is valid?
Whether the principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing before terminating a probationary employee on grounds of unsatisfactory performance?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appointment was on probation and the assessment of performance showed poor work, justifying termination.
Respondent No.1 argued that the college did not follow the assessment procedure under Statute 422 and did not give an opportunity to show cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The termination of a probationary employee is invalid if the employer fails to follow the prescribed assessment procedure under the relevant statute and does not provide an opportunity to show cause, as such termination violates principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The assessment of performance was required to be undertaken as per University Statute 422.
The college did not follow the prescribed procedure and did not give an opportunity to the respondent to improve.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 was appointed on probation on 4 September 1997. The college issued termination orders on 19 April 1999. Respondent No.1 challenged the termination before the Bombay University and College Tribunal, which by judgment dated 29 June 2001 quashed the termination and ordered reinstatement with 50% backwages. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tribunal's order.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay University Act, 1974:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
