DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHIversusJAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY & ANR.

                         [2021] 10 S.C.R. 416


                 DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI
                                   v.
   JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA HANDICAPPED
               UNIVERSITY & ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 6255 of 2021)
                         OCTOBER 29, 2021
 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
           AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Service Law – Illegal Termination – UGC under its Tenth Plan
issued grants to respondent-University including the grant for one
lecturer in the Dept. of Political Science – Appellant appointed to
the post of Assistant Professor, Dept. of Political Science, however
was terminated later stating that the post was abolished – Writ petition
filed by appellant – Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held:
Appointment of the appellant was not contractual in nature and he
was being paid annual increments also – But, since he protested
regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from his salary every month,
the increments were stopped and later, his services were also
terminated – UGC had directed the respondent to continue the Tenth
Plan as Eleventh plan – Thus, the post held by the appellant would
correspondingly continue even under the Eleventh Plan – There
was no abolition of the post held by the appellant nor was the
Department of Political Science abolished by the respondent –
Termination of the services of the appellant was illegal – Order of
the High Court set aside – Respondent to reinstate the appellant.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 On a consideration of the material on record,
the following inferences would arise:
       (a) The appointment of the appellant was not contractual
in nature and he was being paid annual increments also. But,
since he protested regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from his
salary every month, the increments were stopped and later, his
services were also terminated.
     (b) Further, when a communication was addressed by the
Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University to the UGC for
                                  416
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA
                 HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY


sanctioning of grant for Eleventh Plan, there was no mention
regarding abolition of appellant’s post.
     (c) There was also adequate strength of students for the
continuation of the Department of Political Science by the
University.
      (d) The UGC had the funds to pay as grants for the post
even after the completion of the Tenth Five Year Plan insofar as
regular appointees are concerned and the appellant was one such
regular appointee who was appointed after following the requisite
procedure as prescribed under the Statutes of the University.
     (e) The University, represented to the UGC on the one
hand held out that the post of Assistant professor had been
abolished while on the other hand, it also stated that the
Department of Political Science was being continued having
adequate strength of students.
      (f) The UGC had directed the respondent-University to
continue the Tenth Plan as Eleventh plan. The post held by the
appellant would correspondingly continue even under the
Eleventh Plan.
      (g) There was no abolition of the post held by the appellant
herein and nor was the Department of Political Science abolished
by the respondent-University.
      (h) It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the UGC, while
reconsidering the representation of the appellant pursuant to the
direction issued by this Court recommended that the termination
of the services of the appellant was incorrect and therefore his
services be continued as has been so done in the case of similarly
placed appointees of the Tenth Plan. The UGC also recommended
that in case the Department of Political Science has been
abolished by the University then the appellant be absorbed in
the Social Science Faculty of the University.
     (i) There has been no objection raised to the aforesaid
recommendation of the UGC and order of the respondent-
University. [Para 26][429-E-H; 430-A-F]
418             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A            1.2 The termination of the services of the appellant was
      illegal and not in accordance with law. The impugned order passed
      by the High Court is set aside. The respondent-University to
      reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in the Department
      of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of continuity of
      services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, if
B
      any. The appellant will however, not be entitled to any
      disbursement of salary for the period from 31st March, 2007, till
      the date of reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period
      on the principle of “no work, no pay”. The appellant is, however,
      entitled to notional fixation of salary and other benefits in the
C     event other persons similarly situated to the appellant have been
      extended such benefits by the University. [Para 27][430-F-H;
      431-A]
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6255 of
      2021.
D            From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2008 of the High Court
      of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20470 of 2007.
             Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Shakun Sharma, Ms. Mary, Mitzy,
      Ms. Damini Thaker, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Mrigna Shekhar, Advs.
      for the Appellant.
E
            Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan
      Mishra, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra, Anurag Tiwari, Kamlendra Mishra, Ravinder
      Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F             B. V. NAGARATHNA J.
             1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by
      the judgment dated 8th February,2008, passed by the Division Bench of
      the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ petition
      No. 20470 of 2007, by which the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.
G            2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-
      University which was established in the year 2001 was included in the
      List of Universities eligible to receive assistance from the Central
      Government under Section 12(b) of the University Grants Commission
      Act, 1956 (‘UGC Act’ for short) and Rules framed there under, with
H     effect from 20th May, 2003.
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                         419
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


      3. The respondent-University framed Statutes in the year 2002             A
providing for various faculties including Faculty of Social Science of
which Political Science is a Department.
       4. In April, 2004, the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’ for
the sake of convenience) under its Tenth Plan issued grants to the
respondent-University including the grant in respect of financial support       B
for one lecturer in the Department of Political Science. On 3 rd July,
2004, the respondent-University advertised inter-alia for filling up of
vacancy in the Department of Political Science. The appellant herein
applied and was selected to the post of Assistant Professor and was
issued appointment letter dated 4th December, 2004, in the grade pay
scale of Rs.8,000-13,500.                                                       C

       5. According to the appellant, every month he was forced to pay
Rs.5,000 from his salary to the University as donation to which he objected
but nevertheless continued to pay the amount to the University. Thereafter,
the appellant wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to grant
him Ph.D. incentive as admissible under UGC grant. On 19th July, 2006,          D
the Registrar of the University replied that since his post was only for
the Tenth Plan which was going to expire on 31st March, 2007, his
services would be automatically terminated on the said date i.e. 31st
March, 2007. The appellant received another communication, dated 1st
March, 2007, from the Registrar of the University stating that his services     E
were no more required by the University with effect from 31 st March,
2007, as his post was abolished.
       6. The appellant being aggrieved by the abolition of the post and
his consequent removal, filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20470/2007
before the Allahabad High Court. According to the appellant, on the one         F
hand, the respondent-University had stated that his post had been
abolished while on the other hand, had requested respondent no.2 - UGC
for continuation of grant for all the posts under the Tenth Plan even
under the Eleventh Plan by showing that the appellant was working in
the Department of Political Science as on 6th April, 2007.
                                                                                G
       7. According to the appellant, the High Court listed his Writ Petition
on 2nd November, 2007, and had directed that written arguments be
filed on 5th November, 2007. By impugned order dated 8th February,
2008, the Division Bench of the High Court held that there was neither
any illegality nor any infirmity in the orders of the respondent-University
for abolishing the post and therefore had rightly terminated the services       H
420             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A     of the appellant and it dismissed the Writ Petition. Being aggrieved, special
      leave petition was filed by the appellant herein in which leave was granted
      vide order dated 7th October, 2021.
             8. We have heard Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the
      appellant, Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for
B     respondent no.1-University and Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel
      for respondent no.2-UGC and perused the written submissions as well
      as the material on record.
             9. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
      contended that there has been wrongful termination of the appellant as
C     Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science by the
      respondent-University. In support of this submission, reliance was placed
      on the recommendation of the Expert Committee vide its Report dated
      5th February, 2019, which has been accepted by the UGC and there has
      been no objection raised to the said recommendation by the respondent-
      University. Elaborating the said contention, it was submitted that the
D     appellant was appointed as an Assistant professor pursuant to an
      advertisement dated 3rd July, 2004 and though the same was under the
      Tenth Five Year Plan and it was supported by the UGC, appellant’s
      services were in fact continued even under the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
      However, the services of the appellant were wrongfully terminated on
E     the lapse of the Tenth Five Year Plan on 31st March, 2007, with an
      intention of discontinuing the appellant as Assistant Professor in the
      respondent-University on the ground that he had been appointed during
      the Tenth Five Year Plan. But fact is that the respondent-University had
      communicated to the UGC, the requirement of a post in the Department
      of Political Science even under the Eleventh Plan. This was the very
F     post held by the appellant herein. Therefore, the termination of the
      appellant on the lapse of the Tenth Plan was illegal.
             10. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the
      fact that the Expert Committee constituted by the UGC initially had
      submitted an adverse recommendation but subsequently when another
G     Expert Committee was constituted by the UGC a detailed report was
      submitted with the recommendation to reinstate the appellant as Assistant
      Professor of the respondent-University. The same is supported by reasons
      given by the Expert Committee. It was submitted that the Expert
      Committee had categorically stated that the termination of the appellant
H     as Assistant professor in Department of Political Science was “perverse
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                       421
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


and incorrect”. In the circumstances, the said recommendation may be          A
accepted and the appellant may be reinstated in service. It was contended
that the respondent-University had terminated the services of the appellant
as he had earlier protested against payment of Rs.5,000 per month as
donation to the University as said amount was deducted from his salary
without any justification. Hence, it was submitted that relief may be
                                                                              B
granted to the appellant herein on the basis of the recommendation made
by the second Expert Committee of the UGC as the respondent-University
had not objected to the same.
      11. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the UGC, which was
impleaded as respondent no.2 in this appeal, also submitted that the
representation of the appellant dated 19th October, 2012, was considered      C
by the Chairman of the UGC as the errors in the Report of the earlier
Expert Committee were pointed out and a second Expert Committee
was constituted to reconsider the grievances of the appellant. The second
Expert Committee took into account the documents submitted by the
appellant including those obtained under the Right to Information Act         D
(RTI Act) and it had observed as under:
      •
      “In reply to the RTI application moved by the Petitioner, University
      had admitted that all teachers appointed under the Xth plan were
      made permanent with effect from the date of their appointment           E
      and an order to this effect was issued by the University on
      27.03.2010.
      •
      Vide letter dated 28.07.2018 written by the University to the UGC,      F
      it was stated that all the teachers appointed under the Xth Plan
      were appointed on a contract for 5 years, but pursuant to order
      dated 27.03.2020, the teachers appointed under the Xth Plan were
      treated as permanent with effect from the date of their ap-
      pointment.
                                                                              G
      •
      Even after the abolition of the Department of Political Science
      and Philosophy, the University, vide letter dated 06.04.2007, had
      sought funds under the XIth Plan from UGC. In their proposal the
      University had shown an additional requirement of one post in
                                                                              H
422             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A           Department of Political Science, and the existing working strength
            in the said department was shown as 2.
            •
            In the letter dated 13.11.2008 written by the Vice Chancellor to
            the Petitioner it was admitted that there was nothing to show that
B           the appointment of the Petitioner was contractual.
            •
            The Vice Chancellor of the University in his letter dated
            05.12.2008, had admitted that even in case where no students are
C           enrolled, the Department may be abolished by making a provision
            for merger/absorption of the teachers in other department(s).
            •
            All other appointees under the Xth Plan were made per- manent
            except the Petitioner.”
D
             It was further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-
      UGC that the second Expert Committee recommended that the
      termination of the services of the appellant was “perverse and incorrect”
      and hence, he had to be reinstated as Assistant Professor, Department
      of Political Science and in case the said department had been abolished,
E     absorbed in any other department or faculty of the University.
             12. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the
      respondent-University reiterated the reasoning of the Division Bench of
      the High Court in the impugned judgment and contended that the
      appointment of the appellant was under a scheme of the UGC sanctioned
F     under the Tenth Five Year Plan and the said appointment was to come to
      an end on the expiry of the said plan on 31st March, 2007. In the
      circumstances, the services of the appellant were rightly terminated by
      the University as the post held by the appellant stood abolished and the
      services of the appellant were no longer required by the University. It
      was contended that the appointment of the appellant was not on a
G     permanent basis but the post which the appellant held was under the
      Tenth Plan and it was categorically mentioned in the letter of appointment
      dated 4th December, 2004, issued to the appellant that his appointment
      to the post was under the Tenth Plan and was likely to be continued
      depending upon his performance and availability of post. Since the Tenth
H     Plan came to an end on 31st March, 2007, the post held by the appellant
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                          423
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


ceased and therefore the services of the appellant were rightly terminated       A
as his appointment was a tenure based appointment and the post had
been abolished. It was urged that in view of the aforesaid facts, the
High Court had correctly concluded that the services of the appellant
were rightly terminated on 31st March, 2007, having regard to the nature
of the appointment and the terms and conditions thereof. Learned senior
                                                                                 B
counsel for the respondent- University submitted that there is no merit in
this appeal and the same may be dismissed.
       13. The question that arises in this appeal is, whether, the
termination of the services of the appellant was legal and in accordance
with law or not.
                                                                                 C
       14. It is noted that as per communication dated 29th May, 2004,
by the UGC, to the Universities of all the States/UTs, including the
respondent-University herein, owing to the financial difficulties faced by
the Universities, the UGC had decided to offer the following three options
to the Universities for filling up all the posts approved during the Tenth
                                                                                 D
Plan period to safeguard the interest of the students:
       “(A) Assurance may be obtained from the State Government for
       taking over the liability of these posts after tenth plan period.
                                        OR
                                                                                 E
       (B) Assurance may be given by the University through a resolution
       of the Executive Council to bear the burden of these posts after
       Tenth Plan.
                                        OR
       (C) Appointment shall be made on contractual basis.”                      F

        The University could opt for any of the above three options for
filling up all the posts by fulfilling the conditions regarding qualification,
etc., of the posts as prescribed under the UGC Regulations.
      15. Accordingly, the respondent-University on 3rd July, 2004,              G
advertised for filling up, inter-alia, vacancy in the Department of Political
Science. Pursuant to the advertisement, the appellant applied for the
vacant post and was appointed as Assistant professor in the Department
of Political Science, Faculty of Social Science. The Clause No.7 of
appointment letter dated 4th December, 2004, reads as under ……….
                                                                                 H
424             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A           “His appointment to the post is to be for X-Plan, but likely to be
      continued depending upon the performance of the candidate and
      availability of post.”
              16. The pay scale of the appellant was Rs.8,000-13,500 and the
      gross salary was Rs.13,095. According to the appellant, Rs.5,000 per
B     month was being deducted from the salary as donation which was 38.18%
      of his gross salary to which objection was raised by the appellant. Further,
      appellant by his letter dated 19th July, 2006, addressed to the Vice
      Chancellor of the respondent-University, sought for grant of benefit of
      Ph.D incentive and annual increment and for payment of Dearness
      Allowance, etc., There was no response to the aforesaid letter but on
C     1st March, 2007, the Registrar of the respondent-University informed
      the appellant that he was appointed in the Faculty of Social Science,
      Department of Political Science as Assistant professor under the Tenth
      Five Year Plan which was coming to an end on 31st March, 2007, and
      therefore, his appointment was to automatically come to an end on the
D     said date and the requirement of his services would depend entirely on
      the decision of the University. As a sequel to the above, on 31st March,
      2007, the Registrar communicated to the appellant that as per the decision
      of the University dated 28th March, 2007, the post held by the appellant
      had been abolished and therefore, his services were no more required
      by the University.
E
              17. Appellant has produced the communication dated 6th April,
      2007, written by the University addressed to the Chairman, UGC,
      acknowledging the generous contribution from the UGC during the Tenth
      Plan and the contribution to be made by the UGC to the Eleventh plan
      proposal including the details of the strength in each faculty. According
F     to the appellant, at the end of Tenth plan, the Department of Political
      Science had not been abolished by the University nor could it be said
      there was no requirement of any lecturers, etc. in the said Department.
              18. Further, on a reading of the appointment letter dated 4th
      December, 2004, it is evident that the appointment of the appellant was
G     not on contractual basis but it was categorically stated therein that the
      appointment was under Tenth Plan and it was likely to be continued
      depending upon the performance of the candidate and the availability of
      the post.
              19. In fact, UGC was impleaded in this appeal by order dated 6 th
H     May, 2010 as respondent no.2 and was directed to consider the
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                         425
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


representation of the appellant herein without being influenced by any          A
finding of the High Court.
       20. According to the UGC, initially, the representation of the
appellant was placed before an Expert Committee, which examined the
grievances of the appellant and submitted its report to the UGC. The
UGC examined the representation of the appellant in light of the report         B
submitted by the Expert Committee and by order dated 23rd December,
2011, had rejected the representation. The appellant again addressed a
representation to Chairman of the UGC dated 19th October, 2012, pointing
out the errors in the report of the Expert Committee and requested for
re-examination of his case. The appellant had also obtained certain
documents under Right to Information Act for the consideration of the           C
UGC and the Expert Committee.
       21. The UGC constituted another Expert Committee to look into
the grievances of the appellant afresh on the direction of this Court and
after deliberations held on 29th January, 2019, and taking into consideration
the material placed by the appellant has observed and recommended as            D
under:
      “(I) As regards the terms of the appointment letter dated
      04.12.2004, it is observed that the appointment letter was
      completely silent on the issue as to whether the appointment was
      permanent or contractual. It simply mentioned that his appointment        E
      to the post was for X-Plan, but was likely to continue depending
      upon the performance of the candidate and availability of post.
      As per the Clause 10.21 of the JRHU Regulations, 2002, all
      appointments of teachers was to be made on probation for a period
      of 12 months and in no manner it could be extended beyond 24              F
      months. As per Clause 10.22, at the end of the probation period,
      the incumbent was to be made permanent on his appointment by
      the EC. This was also admitted by the University in its reply under
      RTI to Dr. Tripathi vide their reply dated 14.08.2013. It was also
      mentioned in the said reply (Reply at 1/B) that upon the completion
      of probation, all the appointment would be treated as permanent.          G
      Moreover, it was also stated in the said reply that the teachers
      appointed under the X Plan were made permanent w.e.f. the date
      of their appointment and the said order was issued on 27.03.2010
      (Reply at 3 of RTI reply). In the same reply under RTI, it has
      been stated that the appointed teachers had also been given annual        H
426      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A     increments w.e.f. the date of completion of probation. It must be
      highlighted here that Dr. Tripathi was also given annual increment.
      These facts, obtained under RTI by the applicant-Dr. Tripathi,
      were not placed before the UGC Committee that had considered
      and disposed of the representation of Dr. Tripathi in 2011.
B                                                 Placed at Annexure-III
      (II) Here reference may also be made to the letter dated 28.07.2018
      written by the University to the UGC wherein it has been
      categorically stated that all the teachers appointed under the X
      Plan were appointed on contract for 5 years at the end of their
C     term on 31.03.2007 but pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2010
      and in compliance of the same, the teachers appointed under X
      Plan were treated as permanent w.e.f. the date of their
      appointment.
                                                  Placed at Annexure-IV
D
      This fact was also not placed before the UGC Committee that
      had considered and disposed of the representation of Dr. Tripathi
      in 2011 as this information was provided by the University in its
      response dated 28.07.2018 to a letter of UGC.
      (III) As regards the stand taken by the University vide their letter
E
      dated 25.04.2008 that the appointment made in the X Plan was on
      contractual basis, the same seems to be an afterthought as it is
      made out from two communications of the University. 1st the EC
      meeting dated 28.03.2007 wherein it was decided that all the other
      departments would continue expert for the Political Science and
F     Philosophy departments that were decided to be closed down.
      But ironically, the University in its letter dated 06.04.2007, written
      immediately thereafter and addressed to the Chairman, UGC has
      mentioned in its proposal for the XI Plan, about the additional
      requirement of the post of Political Science (1) and has shown in
      the column “number of enrollment as on 31.03.2007” as 60 total.
G
      Working strength is also shown to be as “2” in the Department of
      Political Science.
                              Placed at Annexure- V & VI respectively
      (IV) It is also pertinent to mention that UGC on the basis of the
H     letter dated 06.04.2007 of the University, vide their letter dated
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                     427
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


    16.07.2007 released 1st instalment of General Development               A
    Assistance specifically mentioning therein that ‘the Commission
    has decided to allow the Universities to use this grant for purchase
    of books, journals and equipments and X Plan posts”.
                                             Placed at Annexure-VIII
    (V) It is also pertinent to observe that the Vice Chancellor of         B
    JRHU vide his letter dated 13.11.2008 addressed to Dr. Tripathi
    had stated categorically that “the appointment of Dr. Shushil Kumar
    Tripathi does not show any condition that he has been appointed
    on contract basis and in fact he has been shown as permanent
    employee in letter dated 22.01.2006, the Vice Chancellor of the         C
    University wrote to Deputy Director, Distance Education Council,
    Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.
    I must mention here that the sanctioned and financially supported
    post(s) by the UGC under 10th Plan cannot be self-abolished at
    the end of the plan. However, the University has the power to           D
    abolish any department but not the post sanctioned under 10th
    Plan by the UGC after giving assurance”.
    The Committee also refers to letter dated 05.12.2008 written by
    the Vice-Chancellor, JRHU to Dr. Tripathi wherein it is stated as
    below:                                                                  E
    “It is clarified that any department cannot be abolished in the
    event of the students are enrolled. Even in the cases when are no
    students, only the department may be abolished by making a
    provision for merger/absorption of the employee and teachers in
    other department/faculty of the University”.                            F
    Copy of letters dated 13.11.2008 & 05.12.2008 are placed at
    Annexure-VIII.
    (VI) This goes to demonstrate that the University, for reasons
    best known to them, were not interested in continuing with Dr.
    Tripathi only whereas all the other appointees under the X Plan         G
    were made permanent and were extended all other benefits.”
    “In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the matter
    and in supersession of the earlier order dated 23/12/2011 of UGC
    bearing no. F 85-1/2013 (SU- II), this Committee is of the considered
    opinion that the abolition/termination of the post/services of Dr.      H
428            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A            Sushil Kumar Tripathi as Assistant Professor, Political Science
             was perverse and incorrect and thus, this Committee recommends
             that the services of Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi as Assistant
             Professor, Department of Political Science in JRHU may be
             continued as had been so done in the cases of similarly placed
             appointees/teachers of X Plan. In case the Department of Political
B
             Science has been abolished by the University, the University may
             absorb Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi in other Department/Faculty of
             the University.”
             A copy of the minutes of the Expert Committee dated 5th February,
      2019 is annexed as Annexure R-1 by the UGC.
C
             22. The UGC by its order dated 28th February, 2019 on quoting
      the aforesaid recommendation addressed to the Registrar of the
      respondent-University as well as to the appellant herein informed about
      the recommendation of the Expert Committee, inviting objections, if any,
      to the same by the University within a month from the date of the receipt
D     of the said order in the following terms:
            “In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the matter
            and in supersession of the earlier order dated 23/12/2011 of UGC
            bearing No.F.85- 1/2003(SU-II), this Committee is of the
            considered opinion that the abolition/termination of the post/services
E           of Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi as Assistant Professor, Political
            Science was perverse and incorrect and thus, this Committee
            recommends that services of Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi as Assistant
            Professor, Department of Political Science in JRHU may be
            continued as had been so done in the cases of similarly placed
F           appointees/teachers of X Plan. In case, the Department of Political
            Science has been abolished by the University, the University may
            absorb Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi in other Department/Faculty of
            the University.”
            There is no material placed on record to show that any objection
G     has been raised by the respondent-University to the aforesaid order of
      the UGC.
            23. It is evident that the aforesaid recommendation of the Expert
      Committee constituted by the UGC order dated 8th February, 2019, is
      contrary to the earlier order passed by the UGC dated 23rd December,
      2011, rejecting the representation of the appellant.
H
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                     429
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


       24. In fact, on perusal of the communication dated 13th November,    A
2008, sent by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University to the
appellant herein, it was clearly indicated that the appointment of the
appellant was not on contractual basis and in fact, the appellant was
shown as permanent employee in letter dated 22nd January, 2006, written
by Vice-Chancellor of the University to Deputy Director, Distance
                                                                            B
Education Council. It further stated that the post held by the appellant
was sanctioned and financially supported by the UGC under the Tenth
Plan, and the same would not have been automatically abolished at the
end of the Plan.
       25. Moreover, the respondent-University had the power to abolish
any department but not the post sanctioned under the Tenth Plan by the      C
UGC. Another letter of the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University,
dated 5th December, 2008, addressed to the appellant, also stated that if
the students are enrolled in a department, the department could not be
abolished. Only when there are no students, the Department could be
abolished by making a provision for merger or absorption of the employees   D
and teachers of the department in other departments or faculties of the
University.
      26. On a consideration of the material on record, the following
inferences would arise:
      (a)    The appointment of the appellant was not contractual in        E
             nature and he was being paid annual increments also. But,
             since he protested regarding the deduction of Rs.5,000 from
             his salary every month, the increments were stopped and
             later, his services were also terminated.
      (b)    Further, when a communication was addressed by the Vice        F
             Chancellor of the respondent-University to the UGC for
             sanctioning of grant for Eleventh Plan, there was no mention
             regarding abolition of appellant’s post.
      (c)    There was also adequate strength of students for the
             continuation of the Department of Political Science by the     G
             University.
      (d)    The UGC had the funds to pay as grants for the post even
             after the completion of the Tenth Five Year Plan insofar as
             regular appointees are concerned and the appellant was
             one such regular appointee who was appointed after             H
430               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A                   following the requisite procedure as prescribed under the
                    Statutes of the University.
            (e)     The University, represented to the UGC on the one hand
                    held out that the post of Assistant professor had been
                    abolished while on the other hand, it also stated that the
B                   Department of Political Science was being continued having
                    adequate strength of students.
            (f)     The UGC by its communication dated 16th July, 2007, had
                    directed the respondent-University to continue the Tenth
                    Plan as Eleventh plan. The post held by the appellant would
C                   correspondingly continue even under the Eleventh Plan.
            (g)     There was no abolition of the post held by the appellant
                    herein and nor was the Department of Political Science
                    abolished by the respondent-University.
            (h)     It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the UGC, while
D                   reconsidering the representation of the appellant pursuant
                    to the direction issued by this Court recommended that the
                    termination of the services of the appellant was incorrect
                    and therefore his services be continued as has been so done
                    in the case of similarly placed appointees of the Tenth Plan.
E                   The UGC also recommended that in case the Department
                    of Political Science has been abolished by the University
                    then the appellant be absorbed in the Social Science Faculty
                    of the University.
            (i)     There has been no objection raised to the aforesaid
F                   recommendation of the UGC and order of the respondent-
                    University.
              27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the termination
      of the services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with
      law. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High
      Court and allow the appeal. In the circumstances, the respondent-
G
      University is directed to reinstate the appellant as Assistant Professor in
      the Department of Political Science and also grant him the benefit of
      continuity of services only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits,
      if any. The appellant will not, however, be entitled to any disbursement
      of salary for the period from 31 st March, 2007, till the date of
H     reinstatement as he has not worked for the said period on the principle
DR. SUSHIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. JAGADGURU RAM BHADRACHARYA                        431
        HANDICAPPED UNIVERSITY [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]


of “no work, no pay”. The appellant is, however, entitled to notional          A
fixation of salary and other benefits in the event other persons similarly
situated to the appellant, have been extended such benefits by the
University.
      28. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed.
                                                                               B
Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H