1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO.11856  OF 2018  (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO 10084 OF 2012)

S C SINGH ..APPELLANT  

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS      ..RESPONDENTS  

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No 196 of 2014  

IN

CIVIL APPEAL @ SLP(C) No 10084 of 2012

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 The appeal in the present case arises from the judgment of a Division Bench

of  the  High  Court  of  Uttarakhand  dated  28  December  20111.  The  High  Court

1 In Writ Petition No 429 of 2006

REPORTABLE

2

quashed a Resolution dated 29 July 2006, being Resolution No. 23 of the 76th

General Meeting of  the Executive Council  of  the Second Respondent2.  By that

resolution,  the  College  Development  Council3 was  terminated  with  immediate

effect. The Appellant, who was a Director of the CDC, has filed the present appeal,

aggrieved by the direction of the High Court that while the CDC will continue, it will

be without the Appellant as its Director.

3 On  the  request  of  the  Second  Respondent,  the  University  Grants

Commission4  agreed to set up a CDC if an assurance was communicated by the

Government of Uttar Pradesh that it would bear the financial liability after 31 March

1995. By a letter dated 31 October 1991, the Government of Uttar Pradesh agreed

to bear all  the expenses incurred on the post of Director,  CDC after 31 March

1995. By a letter dated 07 November 1991, the UGC agreed to the request of the

University to set up a CDC with two posts – (i) A Director in the Professor’s scale;

and (ii) A stenographer. An advertisement inviting applications for the above posts

was issued on 06 January 1992. The Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC

through open selection by an office order dated 02 November 1992 of the Second

Respondent. On 23 January 1996, the Appellant was permanently absorbed.   

4 In  2003,  the  University  shifted  the  office  of  the  CDC  from  Srinagar  to

Dehradun. The Appellant filed a writ petition5  before the High Court of Uttarakhand

2 Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar 3 CDC 4 UGC 5 Writ Petition (SB) No 7 of 2006

3

challenging the order of transfer. On 09 December 2005, the University transferred

the  Appellant  to  the  Swami  Ramtirth  Campus,  New  Tehri.  On  30  June  2006,

disciplinary  proceedings  were  initiated  against  the  Appellant  and  he  was

suspended. The order of suspension was stayed on an interim application in the

above  writ  petition,  on  10  July  2006.  On  19  July  2006,  the  High  Court  of

Uttarakhand disposed of the writ petition by revoking the suspension, subject to

the Appellant  joining service at  Srinagar.  However,  the disciplinary proceedings

were not stayed.  

5 At the 76th General Meeting of its Executive Council, the University passed a

resolution to abolish the post of CDC on the ground that the permission of the

government for bearing the financial burden of the CDC was not received and it

was  not  legally  created.  Challenging  this  resolution,  the  Appellant  filed  a  writ

petition6  before the High Court of  Uttarakhand, from which the present appeal

arises. The High Court relied on the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of

College  Development  Council  in  Universities’  issued  by  the  UGC  for  the

establishment of the CDC. Clause 3 of the revised guidelines deals with tenure of

the Director, thus:

“He  may  be  appointed  on  a  tenure  basis  for  three  years, extendable for another terms of three years, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire.”

The High Court observed that the Government of Uttar Pradesh agreed to bear the

expenses to be incurred in respect of  the post of  Director,  CDC. However,  the

University  did  not  obtain  reimbursement  from  the  State  Government  for  the

6 Writ Petition No 429 of 2006

4

expenses incurred. Ruling that the University could not hold out that there was no

assurance by the State Government to take over the liability of the CDC after 31

March  1995,  the  High  Court  quashed  Resolution  No.  23  of  the  76th General

Meeting of the Executive Council by which the post of the CDC was sought to be

abolished. This ruling of the High Court is not challenged. On the question whether

the Appellant  should  be allowed to continue as Director,  CDC, the High Court

observed that he was admittedly appointed under the scheme envisaged by the

revised guidelines issued by the UGC and could only work for two tenures of three

years. Noting that the Appellant had already served two terms of three years, the

High  Court  held  that  the  CDC  will  continue,  but  without  the  Appellant  as  its

Director. It is this direction of the High Court, refusing the Appellant’s continuation

as  Director,  CDC that  forms the  basis  of  the  present  appeal.  The High  Court

directed  that  the  University  to  complete  the  adjustment  of  the  Appellant  as

mentioned  in  Resolution  No.  23  of  the  76th General  Meeting  of  the  Executive

Council. The High Court held that the submission that the term limit in the revised

guidelines applies only to deputationists has no merit since the deputationists are

also people associated with higher education and at the relevant time when the

revised guidelines were issued,  the retirement  age of  persons associated  with

higher education would be much less than 65 years.  

6 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5

7 Mr Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the

office order dated 02 November 1992 by which the Appellant was appointed as

Director, CDC did not mention that he is being appointed on deputation or on a

tenure basis. The main contention put forth for the Appellant is that applying the

principle of  ejusdem generis, the tenure limitation of two terms of three years in

Clause 3 of the revised guidelines can only apply to those Directors appointed on

a deputation basis. It was further contended that once the Appellant was absorbed,

the tenure limitation which applied only to deputationists, did not apply to him.  

8 The learned counsel for the Respondent University submitted on the other

hand that the Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for a tenure of

three years and that the tenure limitation of two terms of three years applied to the

post of Director, CDC and barred the Appellant from continuing in the post after

having served two terms.  

9 The terms of the advertisement issued on 06 January 1992 by the University

calling for applications for the posts in the newly constituted CDC are material. The

relevant portion reads thus:

“Minimum qualification for Director are same as those for the post of a Professor as prescribed by the University. Preference will be given to the candidate who has dealt with academic administration. The tenure of the Director, College Development Council will be for 3 years.” (Emphasis supplied)

The Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for a period of three

years. Though the office order dated 02 November 1992 by which the Appellant

6

was appointed as Director, CDC does not mention a tenure, it cannot be said that

the Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post of Director,

CDC  was  for  a  period  of  three  years.  The  appointment  was  in  terms  of  the

advertisement.

10 Clause 3 of the revised guidelines reads thus:

“3.  The  Coordinator/Director/Dean  of  the  College  Development Council  may  be  appointed  by  the  Syndicate  on  the recommendation  of  the  Selection  Committee  consisting  of  the Vice-Chancellor,  as  Chairman,  a  nominee  of  the  UGC,  and  a nominee of the Syndicate of the University. He may be appointed in the scale of Rs. 1500-2500 plus other admissible allowances as per university rules.  Persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation  and  other  permissible  allowances.  He may  be appointed on a tenure basis for three years, extendable for another term of three years, but not beyond the age of 65 years, when he would retire.”  

                                                                        (Emphasis supplied)

11 Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that the sentence that

provides for a tenure follows the sentence that states that “persons on deputation

will be eligible for deputation and other permissible allowances” and hence, the

tenure limitation applies only to those appointed as deputationists. It is submitted

that  the  word  “he”  appearing  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  and  after  the

sentence permitting the appointment of deputationists must be read together.  

12 There is no merit in this contention. The clause deals with the appointment

of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC.  When the clause is read as a whole,

the  word  “he”  is  used  to  indicate  the  pay  scale  and  the  tenure  of  the

7

Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. The sentence on deputationists is merely

to  provide  that  those  persons  on  deputation  will  be  eligible  for  deputation

allowance and other permissible allowances. The clause read as a whole, deals

with the conditions for the appointment of  the Coordinator/Director/Dean of  the

CDC.  Hence, it cannot be held that merely because the sentence providing for a

tenure  limitation  follows  the  sentence  on  deputationists,  the  tenure  limitation

applies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to every person who is

appointed to the post.

13 The Appellant, who was appointed on 02 November 1992, has admittedly

served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms of three years each. We are in

agreement with the High Court that having served the tenure laid down by the

revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC.  

14 For these reasons, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the

High  Court.  The  appeal  shall  stand  dismissed.   In  view  of  the  appeal  being

dismissed, the contempt petition does not survive. There shall be no order as to

costs.

     ........................................................J                   [U U Lalit]

                                                                                                  .......................................................J

                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] New Delhi; December 05, 2018