Case Note & Summary
Background: The appeal arose from a common order of a Single Judge in two writ petitions filed by the appellant, who was appointed as Registrar of Pondicherry University and later relieved from service. The appellant challenged the reversion and a subsequent recruitment notification. Facts: The Pondicherry University issued a recruitment notification on 15.12.2017 for filling the post of Registrar, among other positions, through direct recruitment or deputation. The appellant, a Principal in a Government College in Puducherry, applied without obtaining endorsement from his employer, thus applying under direct recruitment. However, after selection by a committee and approval by the Executive Council, the University issued an appointment order dated 02.07.2018, appointing him as Registrar for five years. The appellant joined on 05.07.2018 after being relieved by his parent department. On 20.02.2019, he received an email conveying that the Executive Council had decided to relieve him from the post. He was reverted to his parent department. He challenged the decision in W.P.No.5836 of 2019. Subsequently, a fresh notification for the Registrar post was issued on 08.09.2020, which he challenged in W.P.No.15341 of 2020. The Single Judge, by order dated 17.02.2022, dismissed the challenge to the new notification and upheld the reversion, but directed that the stigmatic remarks in the Executive Council decision be expunged from the service records. Aggrieved by the upholding of the reversion, the appellant filed the intra-court appeal. Legal Issues: The primary issues were whether the appellant’s appointment was by direct recruitment or deputation, determining the applicability of Section 31(1) of the Pondicherry University Act, 1985 requiring a written contract; whether the termination violated Statute 27 of the University Statutes that mandates three months’ notice; whether the order was stigmatic and thus required an enquiry under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court; and whether the principles of natural justice were violated. Arguments: The appellant argued that his appointment was in the nature of deputation, thus no written contract was required; that no notice was given; that the Executive Council decision contained adverse remarks which amounted to stigma, and since the Single Judge found stigma and ordered expungement, the termination could not be sustained; and that his tenure appointment could not be curtailed disadvantageously. He relied on several Supreme Court decisions. The University contended that the appellant consciously applied under direct recruitment and failed to execute the mandatory contract; that his services were unsatisfactory and he himself volunteered to be relieved; and that the Single Judge rightly upheld the reversion after removing the stigmatic remarks. Court’s Analysis: The Division Bench, after hearing the parties, focused on the nature of appointment. It noted that despite the appellant applying under direct recruitment, the University and the parent Government had treated his appointment as on deputation. The Court extracted the appointment order and considered the necessity of executing a written contract under Section 31(1) of the University Act. The Court also examined the arguments on notice, stigma, and natural justice. Decision: The provided judgment text does not include the final operative portion; therefore, the ultimate decision and ratio are not ascertainable from the excerpt. The Court’s reasoning is incomplete in the available text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Direct Recruitment vs Deputation - Pondicherry University Act, 1985, Section 31(1); Statutes of the University - The appellant applied for the post of Registrar pursuant to a notification that allowed both direct recruitment and deputation; he submitted an application for direct recruitment without employer endorsement, but the University and the parent Government treated the appointment as on deputation. The Court examined the nature of appointment to determine whether the appellant was required to execute a written contract under Section 31(1) of the Act and whether the termination attracted the notice requirement under Statute 27. (Paras 15-19) B) Service Law - Termination - Stigma and Natural Justice - Constitution of India, Article 311; Precedent - Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, (1999) 3 SCC 60; P. Venugopal v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 1 - The Single Judge had found that the executive council decision contained stigmatic remarks and directed expungement, but still upheld the reversion. The appellant argued that once stigma is established, an enquiry is mandatory before passing a termination order, and thus the reversion cannot stand. The Court noted these contentions and the principles that a stigmatic termination cannot be effected without enquiry. (Paras 8, 9, 10) C) Service Law - Natural Justice - Right to Notice - Statutes of the University, Statute 27 - The appellant contended that the termination violated Statute 27 which mandates three months' notice in writing for removal, and that no such notice was given, rendering the decision void. The University countered that the appellant had not executed the mandatory contract and had volunteered to be relieved, thus no notice was required. The Court considered the interplay between the statutory requirement and the actual circumstances. (Paras 6, 12, 13) D) Service Law - Adverse Remarks - Communication Requirement - Precedent - Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 - The appellant relied on Dev Dutt to assert that any adverse entry must be communicated and an opportunity of hearing provided; the Court took note of this principle in the context of the stigmatic remarks that were ordered to be expunged but whose effect on the termination order remained at issue. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant from the post of Registrar of Pondicherry University was legally valid, considering the nature of appointment (direct recruitment or deputation), compliance with statutory requirements of notice, and the presence of stigma in the order.
Final Decision
Not mentioned (judgment text incomplete)
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- nature of appointment (direct recruitment vs deputation)
- requirement of written contract under Pondicherry University Act
- 1985
- necessity of notice under Statute 27
- stigma in termination order
- principles of natural justice
- communication of adverse entries
- tenure protection
- difference between transfer on deputation and appointment on deputation
