Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by a lecturer seeking to quash a refusal by the University to approve her appointment. The Petitioner, who had been appointed as a lecturer in Commerce and Law in 2007, claimed that the refusal was arbitrary and violated her rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner had completed her qualifications, including a PhD, and was selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. The Respondent institution had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Directorate of Education before issuing the advertisement for the post. Despite the appointment being made and the Petitioner working for nearly a decade, the University refused approval in 2017, citing a lack of sanctioned posts in the Open category. The Petitioner argued that there were vacancies and that she was qualified to teach Costing, a subject related to her appointment. The Court analyzed the procedural history, noting the significant delay by the University in processing the approval and the lack of objections raised during the Petitioner’s tenure. The Court found that the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation for approval based on the long-standing acceptance of her appointment and the absence of any procedural irregularities on her part. Ultimately, the Court quashed the University’s refusal and directed the approval of the Petitioner’s appointment with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Approval of Appointment - Quashing of University Refusal - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 - The Petitioner sought to quash the refusal of the University to approve her appointment as a lecturer, arguing that the appointment was made after due process and that she had a legitimate expectation of approval. The Court held that the delay and procedural lapses by the University warranted the quashing of the refusal and directed approval of the appointment with consequential benefits (Paras 1-32).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal of the University to grant approval for the appointment of the Petitioner was justified.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition No.4851 of 2018 was allowed. The impugned Order dated 10.06.2017 issued by the University refusing to grant approval for appointment of the Petitioner was quashed and set aside. The Respondent Nos.3 to 5 were directed to grant approval to the Petitioner’s appointment with effect from 01.12.2007 with all consequential benefits and arrears of salary and increments within a period of twelve weeks from the date of passing of this Order.
Law Points
- Legitimate expectation
- Doctrine of promissory estoppel
- Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
- NOC issuance
- Selection Committee procedures
