Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   4406-4418 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 13914-13926 of 2016)

THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER, ETC.      ...  APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

DR. ANURIKA VAISH AND OTHERS, ETC.     ... RESPONDENT (S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4419-4420  OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3566-3567 of 2017)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.  

2. Certain appointments to the post of Professor, Associate

Professor and Assistant Professor made in various divisions of

the  appellant-Institute,  pursuant  to  advertisement  dated

30.01.2013,  were  subsequently  cancelled  by  the  Board  of

Management (“Board”). The selection was held on 06.04.2013

and the incumbents were appointed accordingly. The Board, in

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

its Eighth Meeting, as Item No.16, took a decision to cancel the

appointments. The relevant consideration reads as follows:

“ITEM NO.16 To consider the Status Report on Selection of Academic Staff done on April 6, 2013.

The  Board  considered  the  Status  Report  on  the selection  of  the  Academic  Staff  and  deliberated upon it at length. In the context, in addition to the minutes as at  Item No.1 of  this  meeting,  it  was apprised  by  some  Board  members  that  the advertisement  brought  out  by  IIITA  for  these selections was NOT as per norms. Also for some of the appointments,  eligibility  criteria  were  unduly relaxed, taking incorrect pretext of the earlier BOM resolutions.

The Board also noticed that through a GO issued vide  F.No.3.11014/11/Q4-CDN  dated  19th July, 2004, MHRD had advised heads of all autonomous Bodies prohibiting all the retiring Directors, for any action to make selections / promotions two -  three months  before  the  expiry  of  their  term  or retirement,  as  the  case  may  be.  Further,  the erstwhile  director’s  term  expired  on  26th December,  2012  and  he  was  on  six  months extension in April 2013. Therefore, in April 2013, he was neither competent nor authorised to call for any selections.

When these facts became known to the Board in this  meeting,  it  became  clear  that  the  entire process  of  selection  /  appointment  and  other recommendations  mentioned  by  the  selection committee therein, was wrong ab initio.

2

Page 3

Accordingly,  the  BoM  in  this  Meeting recommended,  in  supersession  to  the  earlier decisions  of  the  Board  in  this  matter,  that  all selections / appointments done on April 6th, 2013 are CANCELLED. ...”

3. Based on  the  above-said  decision,  the teachers  were

terminated from service. They challenged the same before the

High Court in  Writ  Petition No.22558 of  2014 and connected

cases.  Those  cases  were  disposed  of  by  judgment  dated

11.12.2015. Though the High Court has gone into the various

aspects,  the  Court  finally  found  that  the  decision-making

process adopted by the Board was vitiated. The High Court was

of  the view that the appellant should have considered as to

whether  it  was  bound  by  University  Grants  Commission

Regulations or the qualifications prescribed by the Institute and

as advertised in the Notification for Selection. It was also held

that  the  relaxation  of  qualification  had  to  be  individually

assessed,  having  regard  to  the  requirement  based  on

experience, etc. The High Court hence set aside the Resolution

at  Item  No.16  taken  in  the  Board  and  the  consequential

termination  of  the  appointments.  To  quote  the  operative

portion:  

3

Page 4

“For  all  the  aforesaid  reasons  recorded hereinabove the entire decision making process is clearly vitiated and the unclarity on the issue of the authority of the respondents to undertake this exercise  as  also  the  correct  application  of  rules and the law in this regard therefore persuade us to strike  down  the  action  taken  against  the petitioners.

Consequently,  the  impugned  cancellation orders on the basis of the impugned resolution of the 8th Board Meeting cannot be sustained and the same are hereby quashed. The writ petitions are accordingly  allowed  and  the  impugned cancellation  orders  in  these  petitions  as  well  as the 16th Resolution of  the 8th Board Meeting are hereby quashed. The resolutions passed in the 7th Board Meeting and 8th Board Meeting only in so far as  they  are  adverse  to  the  petitioners  shall  be open  to  consideration  in  the  light  of  the observations made hereinabove.  

In  view  of  the  findings  recorded  by  us hereinabove, we leave it open to the Board to take a fresh decision as may be permissible in the light of the observations made hereinabove within three months after opportunity to the petitioners.”  

4. The appellant-Institute, in purported implementation of

the  directions  in  the  judgment  dated  11.12.2015  again

unilaterally  took  certain  decisions  in  the  Fourteenth  and

Fifteenth  Meetings  of  the  Board  and  subsequently  issued

4

Page 5

show-cause  notices  to  the  teachers  as  to  why  their

appointment should not be cancelled.

5. Since some of the teachers were not reinstated despite

the  declaration  by  the  High  Court  that  the  termination  was

illegal, they filed contempt petitions. Since, show-cause notices

were  issued,  some  teachers  challenged  those  show-cause

notices  and  the  High  Court  has  stayed  those  show-cause

notices.  It  is  at  that  stage,  the  appellant  has  chosen  to

challenge  the  common  final  judgment  and  order  dated

11.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

in Writ-A No. 22558 of 2014, 21309 of 2014, 21319 of 2014,

21595 of 2014, 37213 of 2014 and 36461 of 2014; and against

the Interim Order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad in Contempt Application (Civil)  No.

645 of 2016 and 1033 of 2016; and against the Interim Order

dated 04.04.2016 passed by the High Court  of  Judicature at

Allahabad  in  Writ-A  No.  14486  of  2016,  14488  of  2016  and

14490 of 2016; and against the Interim Order dated 13.04.2016

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A

No. 16715 of 2016.

5

Page 6

6. Having  extensively  heard  Shri  Sunil  Gupta,  learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi and

Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the affected

teachers, other learned Counsel appearing for teachers and Dr.

Ashutosh  Kumar  Singh,  respondent-in-person,  we  are  of  the

view that the whole                   ill-advised exercise undertaken

by the appellant-Institute only led to unnecessary litigation. In

the judgment dated 11.12.2015, the High Court has set aside

Resolution at Item No.16 of the Eighth Board Meeting. It is seen

from  the  discussion  that  the  decision  to  cancel  the

appointments  was  based  on  a  Status  Report  which  was  not

furnished to the affected teachers. The High Court hence found

that the decision taken by the appellant-Institute is in violation

of the principles of natural justice. That is the quintessence of

the judgment. And thereafter, the High Court gave liberty to the

appellant to take a fresh decision in accordance with law, that

is  to  say,  after  affording  an  opportunity  of  hearing  to  the

affected teachers.

7. All  that  the  appellants  should  have  done  is  to  make

available a copy of the Status Report discussed in the Eighth

6

Page 7

Board Meeting which led to cancellation of their appointments

and  afford  an  opportunity  of  making  a  representation  and

hearing. Short of that, the appellant-Institute has taken several

other  steps.  Maybe they have intended well  but  worked out

poorly.  The  teachers  could  not  have  been  issued  the

show-cause notices based on any decision taken subsequent to

the judgment.  

8. Since we intend to remit  the matters to the Institute

with  a  direction  to  start  the  process  from  the  stage  of  the

judgment  of  the  High  Court  dated  11.12.2015,  we  do  not

propose  to  make  any  further  observations  in  this  regard.

Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of as follows:

A.The  appellant-Institute  shall  serve  a  copy  of  the  Status

Report discussed in the Eighth Board Meeting to the affected

teachers forthwith and also provide a further period of two

weeks for making a fresh representation. On receipt of the

representations,  the  affected  teachers  shall  be  given  an

opportunity of hearing on all the aspects referred to in the

Status Report and on the reasons for termination as referred

to in the Eighth Board Meeting. Thereafter, the Board shall

7

Page 8

take  a  fresh  decision  in  the  case  of  each  individual  in

accordance with law. We make it clear that the only notice

which the teachers could have been issued is on the basis of

the  consideration  in  the  Eighth  Board  Meeting  and  not

thereafter. The Status Report considered by the Eighth Board

Meeting and the decision taken by the Eighth Board Meeting

shall  be  treated  as  show-cause  notice  by  the  affected

teachers.

B.The  decisions  in  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Board

Meetings,  as  far  as  the  further  course  of  action  for

implementation  of  the  judgment  dated  11.12.2015  is

concerned, are wholly unwarranted and are set aside.

C. Since  the  cancellation  of  appointment  and  consequential

termination have been set aside by the High Court in the

judgment dated 11.12.2015, the teachers concerned are to

deemed to be in service under law until a fresh decision is

taken  as  per  the  judgment.  In  this  context,  we  may  also

extract  a  submission  made  by  the  Counsel  for  the

appellant-Institute in the High Court in Contempt Application

No. 645 of 2016, which reads as follows:

8

Page 9

“Shri  Navin  Sinha,  learned  Senior  Advocate assisted  by  Shri  Rohan  Gupta,  for  the  opposite party, however, submits that in view of the inquiry being undertaken by the opposite party regarding irregularities in the appointment of the applicants and  other  appointees,  they  are  not  allowed  to work against their post. However, he submits that as per his instructions, the applicants/appointees would be paid their salary even for the period of non  working  i.e.  from  the  date  of  order  dated 11.12.2015 passed by the Writ Court till a decision is taken by the Board.  This period would not be treated  as  the  period  of  non  working  of  the applicants/appointees.”  

However, we make it clear that in case any of the teachers

has been working elsewhere or has been working in a different

capacity in the Institute, such teachers shall not be entitled to

the  benefit  of  the  above  declaration.  Their  further  fate  will

depend on the fresh decision to be taken by the appellant.

D.The appellant-Institute shall  take a fresh decision within a

period  of  two  months  from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the

representations from the affected teachers.

E. Since we have set aside the decisions in the Fourteenth and

Fifteenth  Board  Meetings,  the  contempt  petitions  and writ

petitions  do  not  survive.  Accordingly,  those  contempt

9

Page 10

petitions and writ petitions are struck off from the file of the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J.         (KURIAN JOSEPH)

……………………J.                  (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; MARCH 24, 2017.   

10