MAITREYEE CHAKRABORTYversusTHE TRIPURA UNIVERSITY & ORS.

                 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 854 : 2024 INSC 616

                        Maitreyee Chakraborty
                                  v.
                     The Tripura University & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2024)
                                22 August 2024
           [J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       An offer of appointment was made offering the Appellant the post
       of Assistant Professor in Law (UR) against lien vacancy. Whether
       the Respondent-University was justified in resolving on 13.12.2018
       at the 32nd Meeting in Agenda No.18/32/2018, that the Appellant
       was not to be confirmed and that the post was to be re-advertised.

                                  Headnotes†
       Service Law – Lien Vacancy – Appointment not confirmed –
       Appellant was expecting her regularization since there was
       nothing adverse in her performance – In the 32nd Meeting
       of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018, vide Agenda
       18/32/2018, while other teachers working in their respective
       posts were confirmed, the appellant was not confirmed and the
       Executive Council resolved to re-advertise the post – Propriety:
       Held: The Appellant went through the normal process of selection –
       The employment notice set out that appointments made to the
       posts against LIEN vacancies are likely to be regularized subject to
       vacation of lien and satisfactory performance – The lien admittedly
       got vacated – The performance has been satisfactory as nothing
       adverse had been pointed out and the Appellant is discharging
       the duties for more than seven years – While approving the
       panel of names also it was clearly mentioned that in case the
       candidate at Serial No.1 did not accept the offer, the Appellant was
       to be accommodated against the regular vacancy – This clearly
       demonstrates that all the applicants competed for the regular
       post also and no one from the open market could have been
       prejudiced – Most importantly, the offer of appointment also stated
       that in case the lien was vacated, the Appellant’s service was to
       be continued further with the approval of the Executive Council
       of the University – In this background, the University was not

* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                             855

        Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


     justified in denying her confirmation when all the contingencies
     were cleared with the vacation of the lien and the performance
     being satisfactory – The Respondent-University, being a statutory
     body, any such conduct would tantamount to an arbitrary and
     unreasonable exercise of power, apart from being unfair – The
     discretion vested in the Executive Council should be exercised
     in a fair and non-arbitrary manner – The representations in the
     employment notice, the Resolution of the Executive Council and the
     appointment order did give rise to a legitimate expectation to the
     Appellant that in the event of the lien being vacated, the appellant
     would be continued in service and regularized in the said post – The
     only condition was that it will need the approval of the Executive
     Council – Thus, the Resolution in Agenda No.18/32/2018 of the
     32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018 insofar
     as it records that the Appellant is not confirmed in service and that
     the post should be re-advertised is set aside. [Paras 26, 27, 31]

                               Case Law Cited
     Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala and Others
     [2023] 11 SCR 674 : (2024) 3 SCC 799 – followed.
     Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal
     University & Anr. [2021] 6 SCR 49 : (2021) 10 SCC 116; Meher
     Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors., 2024 INSC 303;
     Ram Pravesh Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others
     [2006] Supp. 6 SCR 512 : (2006) 8 SCC 381; Food Corporation
     of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [1992] Supp. 2
     SCR 322 : (1993) 1 SCC 71 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Service Law; Lien vacancy; Regularization; Arbitrary and
     unreasonable exercise of power; Legitimate expectation.

                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.06.2022 of the High
     Court of Tripura at Agartala in WA No. 5 of 2020
856                                                            [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                           Appearances for Parties
       Ghanshyam Joshi, Chirag Joshi, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Sujeet Kumar, Rajeev K. Tiwari, Randhir Kumar Ojha, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment
       K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment
       of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala dated 20.06.2022 in W.A.
       No. 5 of 2020. By virtue of the said judgment, the Division Bench of
       the High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge
       dated 04.12.2019 dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant.
       Brief facts:
3.     The facts lie in a narrow compass. One Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra
       was working as an Associate Professor in Law in the Respondent-
       University. On 27.11.2015, the Executive Council of the Respondent-
       University granted a lien for one year to Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra
       to enable him to join the post of Associate Professor in Law in Sikkim
       University. On 02.12.2015, Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra joined Sikkim
       University.
4.     On 05.05.2016, the Respondent-University issued an advertisement
       through an employment notification for various posts by inviting
       applications from suitable candidates. In the Department of Law, for
       the post of Assistant Professor, three vacancies were advertised.
       One was an unreserved regular vacancy. One was a lien vacancy
       in the Open category and one was a lien vacancy for the OBC
       candidates. The pay-scale was Rs.15600-39100 and the Grade
       Pay was Rs.6,000/-. In the note appended in Clause 19, it was
       mentioned “Appointment made to the posts against LIEN vacancy
       are likely to be regularized subject to vacation of lien and satisfactory
       performance.” Importantly, it was a common advertisement for all
       the three vacancies. We say this, at the outset, because both the
       learned Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the basis
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                          857

        Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


     that what was advertised was only a lien vacancy. No doubt, two of
     the vacancies were lien vacancies. However, there was one regular
     post also notified in the Unreserved category and hence it will be
     too much to assume that candidates would not have applied in full
     measure on the premise that only lien vacancies were advertised.
5.   On 05.09.2016, pursuant to the Appellant’s application for the post
     of Assistant Professor in Law in the Unreserved category (UR),
     she was asked to appear before the Selection Committee. On
     09.09.2016, a list of shortlisted candidates called for interview for
     the post of Assistant Professor along with the date and time for the
     interview was published. Insofar as the post of Assistant Professor
     (Law) was concerned, the time fixed was 12.30 PM on 21.09.2016
     and about 16 candidates including the Appellant and one Sri. Brij
     Mohan Pandey were called for the interview.
6.   On 20.11.2016, the 26th Meeting of the Executive Council of the
     University was held and the Agenda for consideration of the panel
     and names of persons recommended by the concerned Selection
     Committee for various teaching posts was taken up and approved.
     Insofar as the Assistant Professor in Law was concerned, the following
     was mentioned.

      4. Assistant     2-UR (1 lien 21.09.2016 1. Brij Mohan Pandey
         Professor     Vacancy)
         in Law                                2. Maitreyee
                                               Chakraborty
     A note was appended below which reads as under :-
           “N.B. Candidate at Serial No 2 against the post of Assistant
           Professor in Law shall be given the offer of appointment
           against Lien Vacancy. In case the candidate at Serial No
           1 does not accept the offer of appointment given to him
           against regular/ substantive vacancy, the post shall go
           to the candidate at Serial No 2 and Candidate at Serial
           No 3 on the approved panel shall be given the offer of
           appointment against the Lien Vacancy.”
7.   As would be clear, at Serial Number No.1 was Sri. Brij Mohan Pandey
     and he was taken against the regular vacancy. The Appellant was
     adjusted against the Unreserved lien vacancy. There was a clear
     stipulation that in case Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey did not accept the
858                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       offer of appointment given to him against the regular/substantive
       vacancy, the post was to go to the Appellant who was at Serial
       No.2. It is another matter that Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey took up the
       appointment. However, this is significant because this fact negates
       the reasoning of the University, the learned Single Judge as well as
       the Division Bench that, what was advertised was only a lien vacancy
       and, as such, many meritorious candidates would not have applied.
8.     Be that as it may, on 07.12.2016, an offer of appointment was made
       offering the Appellant the post of Assistant Professor in Law (UR)
       against lien vacancy. Paras 1 and 2 of the appointment letter are
       crucial and reads as under:-
            “In accordance with the decision of the 26th meeting of the
            Executive Council of the University held on 20th November,
            2016, I am to inform you that you have been selected for
            appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Law (UR)
            against Lien vacancy in the Pay Band of Rs. 15600-39100
            plus Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs. 6000 and other
            admissible allowances subject to the terms and conditions
            as set out herein and as amended from time to time.
            2. Your appointment is against Lien vacancy and hence
            liable to be terminated with the joining of the incumbent
            concerned back to the substantive post held by him in this
            University. In case the lien is vacated, your service may
            be continued further with the approval of the Executive
            Council of the University.”
9.     To summarize, the appointment order mentioned that a) the
       appointment was against the lien vacancy; b) it was liable to be
       terminated with the joining of the incumbent concerned back to the
       substantive post and c) in case the lien is vacated, the Appellant’s
       service may be continued further with the approval of the Executive
       Council of the University.
10. The Appellant, after resigning her job from the Tripura Government
    Law College, joined the University in the post of Assistant Professor
    in Law with effect from 17.01.2017 (F/N) and has been continuously
    working for the last seven years and six months.
11. On 08.03.2017, the lien granted to Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra was
    extended by six months with effect from 15.12.2016. When the
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                        859

        Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


     matter stood thus, in the 29th Meeting of the Executive Council of
     the University held on 14.11.2017 vide Agenda 12/29/2017, the
     resignation tendered by Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra vide letter dated
     18.09.2017 from the post of Assistant Professor, Department of
     Law, Tripura University was accepted. The situation then was that
     Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, who held the lien, forfeited any lien that
     may have existed. Ordinarily, by virtue of Note 19 of the employment
     notice, the Appellant was expecting her regularization since there was
     nothing adverse in her performance. However, that was not to be.
12. In the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on 13.12.2018, vide
    Agenda 18/32/2018, while other teachers working in their respective
    posts were confirmed, the Appellant was not confirmed and the
    Executive Council resolved to re-advertise the post. On 28.12.2018,
    the Appellant was informed by the Registrar as follows:-
           “No.F.TU/REG/PF-T/201/17                  Date 28.12.18
           To
           Smt. Maitreyee Chakraborty,
           Assistant Professor,
           Department of LAW,
           Tripura University
           Madam,
           You have joined this University to the Post of Assistant
           Professor, Department of LAW against lien Vacancy on
           17.01.2016.
           As per resolution of 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council
           held on 13th December, 2018 your post has not been
           confirmed which will be re-advertised in time.
           This is for your information and doing the needful.
                                                 (S.Debroy)
                                                 Registrar (i/c)”
13. Here again, nothing was mentioned about any adverse performance.
    On the same day, the Appellant wrote a letter asking for the reasons
    and pointing out that the Minutes of the 32nd Executive Council Meeting
    which was circulated in the official mail merely mentioned: “as per
    rules not confirmed”. In the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council
860                                                          [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       dated 13.12.2018, at Agenda 18/32/2018, the issue was to consider
       the confirmation of services of the teachers of the University to their
       respective posts which are mentioned in the table as Annexure-II.
       The Resolution was :- “as per rules not confirmed”. Post to be re-
       advertised.”
14. On 06.02.2019, the Appellant was informed that (in continuation of
    the University’s letter of 28.12.2018) her continuation in the post
    beyond 28.02.2019 was not possible and that the service against
    the lien was to expire on 28.02.2019. She was also asked if she was
    interested to work as a Guest Faculty and if so, she was asked to
    apply for the same, after observing all the formalities.
15. The Appellant represented to the Registrar, Tripura University, asking
    for reasons for the proposed discontinuance. The Appellant also
    sought a response to her letter of 28.12.2018 and further letters to
    the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean dated 24.01.2019. No reply was
    forthcoming.
       Proceedings before the High Court:
16. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 302 of 2019 before the High
    Court impugning the Resolution of the 32nd Meeting of the Executive
    Council dated 13.12.2018 and the letter of the Registrar dated
    06.02.2019 and prayed that she be confirmed in the post of Assistant
    Professor in Law, Tripura University. An interim order of 28.02.2019
    was passed suspending the Resolution of the 32nd Meeting of the
    Executive Council and the letter dated 06.02.2019 of the Registrar.
17. A counter affidavit came to be filed by the Respondent-University.
    A plea was set up that discretion lay with the authority about the
    continuance of the Appellant, even if the candidate holding the
    lien had vacated the lien. It was further averred that the issue
    about regularizing or re-advertising was in the larger interest of the
    candidates who had not applied (as the post was under lien). What
    is significant is that nothing adverse about the appellant was set out
    anywhere in the counter. By a judgment of 04.12.2019, a learned
    Single Judge, while rejecting the contentions of the Appellant and
    dismissing the writ petition held as follows:-
            “[9] The stand taken by the Tripura University one can
            find no fault. It can be appreciated that when a temporary
            vacancy is advertised which vacancy is created on account
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                             861

        Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


           of the substantive holder of the post not being available
           for a temporary period, many eligible interested candidates
           may be persuaded not to apply. If a person is holding a
           permanent post or even a semi-permanent engagement
           under some other organization, he may not want to join
           a temporary vacancy, resign from his permanent or semi-
           permanent engagement at the risk of being told sometime
           later and since the lien holder has returned back and is
           likely to join his original position he should vacate the post.
           In that view of the matter, the decision of the Executive
           Council to re-advertise the post once the post became
           permanently vacant stands to reason. The decision
           therefore must be upheld.”
18. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the Appellant
    preferred a Writ Appeal No. 5 of 2020 before the Division Bench of
    the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, by a judgment
    dated 20.06.2022, affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge
    and dismissed the Appeal.
     Contentions:
19. We have heard Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the
    Appellant and Mr. Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent-
    University. We have also considered the written submissions filed
    by the Appellant.
20. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated the
    submissions made before the courts below and contended that the
    decision of the Executive Council dated 13.12.2018 resolving not to
    confirm the Appellant and to readvertise the post was illegal and that
    it deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel also contended that the
    courts below have erred in appreciating the true nature and character
    of the advertisement issued. According to the learned counsel, the
    employment notice issued insofar as the unreserved category was
    concerned, advertised for two posts of Assistant Professor in Law.
    According to learned counsel, one was a full regular vacancy and
    the other was designated as a lien vacancy.
21. Learned counsel submits that it was an error to assume that all
    eligible candidates desiring to apply would not have applied since
    the vacancy was a lien vacancy as there was no separate method of
862                                                       [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       applying prescribed. Whoever applied was entitled to be considered
       for the regular vacancy also and as such until the final selection
       there was no way of knowing against which vacancy they would be
       selected. According to learned counsel, this erroneous assumption
       formed the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
       the Division Bench.
22. Learned counsel further made reference to Clause 19 in the
    employment notice as well as to the Minutes of the 26th meeting of
    the Executive Council dated 20.11.2016 and to the letter of offer of
    appointment, to contend that the absence of anything adverse being
    noticed in the performance of the Appellant, she ought to have been
    confirmed since she had undergone the normal process of selection.
    Learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Somesh Thapliyal &
    Anr. vs Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr. (2021)
    10 SC 116 and the judgment in Meher Fatima Hussain vs. Jamia
    Milia Islamia & Ors., 2024 INSC 303 in support of his submissions.
    Mr. Sujeet Kumar supported the findings in the judgment of the courts
    below and contended that there was no scope for interference with
    the same.
       Question for Consideration:
23. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Respondent-
    University was justified in resolving on 13.12.2018 at the 32nd Meeting
    in Agenda No.18/32/2018, that the Appellant was not to be confirmed
    and that the post was to be readvertised? If not, the further question
    would be as to what relief should the Appellant be entitled to?
       Reasoning and Conclusion:
24. As explained earlier, the reasoning that many interested eligible
    candidates would not have been persuaded to apply is not correct
    because what was advertised was one regular vacancy and two
    lien vacancies, with one of the lien vacancies being unreserved.
    At least 16 candidates were shortlisted for the interview from the
    many applicants. In our view, it would not be correct to assume that
    because one of the unreserved vacancies was a lien vacancy many
    eligible candidates would not have applied. One vacancy advertised
    being a regular vacancy, it is fair to assume that the interested
    candidates would have definitely applied and as such no prejudice
    has been caused to any person. This fact is reinforced by a perusal
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                       863

        Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


     of the 26th Meeting of the Executive Committee dated 25.11.2016
     whereby while offering Mr. Brij Mohan Pandey the regular vacancy,
     the Appellant at Serial No.2 was offered the lien vacancy which is for
     the Unreserved Category (UR) with a note that, in case the candidate
     at Serial No.1 did not take the regular vacancy, the Appellant was
     to be accommodated against the same. No doubt Mr. Brij Mohan
     Pandey took the regular vacancy but it could not be disputed that
     all the candidates were competing against the regular vacancy also.
25. Quite apart from that, Note 19 to the employment notice also
    indicated that, subject to satisfactory performance and on vacation
    of lien by the candidate holding the lien the appointee is likely to be
    regularized. No reasons have been given in the 32nd Meeting of the
    Executive Council dated 13.12.2018 or in the letter dated 28.12.2018
    as to why the Appellant was not confirmed. The liberty reserved in
    the appointment order cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
    There was no case made out by the University to deny the Appellant,
    her confirmation.
26. The Appellant went through the normal process of selection. The
    employment notice set out that appointments made to the posts
    against LIEN vacancies are likely to be regularized subject to
    vacation of lien and satisfactory performance. The lien admittedly got
    vacated. The performance has been satisfactory as nothing adverse
    had been pointed out and the Appellant is discharging the duties
    for more than seven years. While approving the panel of names
    also it was clearly mentioned that in case the candidate at Serial
    No.1 – Sri. Brij Mohan Pandey did not accept the offer, the Appellant
    was to be accommodated against the regular vacancy. This clearly
    demonstrates that all the applicants competed for the regular post
    also and no one from the open market could have been prejudiced.
    Most importantly, the offer of appointment also stated that in case
    the lien was vacated, the Appellant’s service was to be continued
    further with the approval of the Executive Council of the University.
27. In this background, particularly when the Appellant was put through
    the fire test of a regular selection, was the University justified in
    denying her confirmation when all the contingencies were cleared
    with the vacation of the lien and the performance being satisfactory?
    We think not. The University cannot be heard to say:- ‘may be the
    lien is vacated, and your performance is satisfactory, but we do not
864                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       want to confirm your service’. The Respondent-University, being a
       statutory body, any such conduct would tantamount to an arbitrary
       and unreasonable exercise of power, apart from being unfair. The
       discretion vested in the Executive Council should be exercised in
       a fair and non-arbitrary manner. It cannot be based on the whim
       and caprice of the decision-making authority. If asked to justify,
       the Executive Council must have good reasons to defend the
       exercise of power. In this case, alas, there are none. The resolution
       of the Executive Council denying confirmation and preferring
       readvertisement is delightfully vague and offers no justification. The
       justification desperately attempted in the counter affidavit to defend
       the decision has, as demonstrated above, come a cropper.
28. In Somesh Thapliyal (supra) it was held as under:-
            “49. In our considered view, once the Appellants have
            gone through the process of selection provided under the
            scheme of the 1973 Act regardless of the fact whether
            the post is temporary or permanent in nature, at least
            their appointment is substantive in character and could
            be made permanent as and when the post is permanently
            sanctioned by the competent authority.
            50. In the instant case, after the teaching posts in the
            Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences have been
            duly sanctioned and approved by the University Grants
            Commission of which a detailed reference has been
            made, supported by the letter sent to the University Grants
            Commission dated 14-8-2020 indicating the fact that the
            present Appellants are working against the teaching posts
            of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor sanctioned
            in compliance of the norms of the AICTE/PCI and are
            appointed as per the requirements, qualifications and
            selection procedure in accordance with the 1973 Act and
            proposed by the University, such incumbents shall be
            treated to be appointed against the sanctioned posts for
            all practical purposes.”
29. Mehar Fatima Hussain (supra), while following Somesh Thapliyal
    (supra), held on the facts of that case that where appointment was
    after undergoing a regular selection process and the incumbents
    possess the relevant qualification, they should have been continued
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                        865

        Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


     on the posts merged with the regular establishment of the University
     instead of adopting a fresh selection procedure. Further in that case
     the University’s action of not continuing the incumbents and starting a
     fresh selection process was held to be unjust, arbitrary and violative
     of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Directions to continue the
     employment were given. On the facts of the present case too we
     are inclined to adopt a similar course.
30. Considering the facts obtaining in the present case, we are inclined
    to hold that, in the absence of any material indicating unsatisfactory
    performance, in the ordinary course of things, fair and just exercise
    of power would require that the Appellant be confirmed against the
    vacancy since there was no more a lien being exercised by Dr.
    Praveen Kumar Mishra. The reasoning given by the learned Single
    Judge and of the Division Bench, as demonstrated above, are
    fallacious. The Appellant has, after undergoing the regular selection
    process, been working since 17.01.2017, for the last seven years
    and approximately six months. Even in the impugned order, pending
    the proposed re-advertisement, she was continued in service.
31. The representations in the employment notice, the Resolution of
    the Executive Council and the appointment order did give rise to a
    legitimate expectation to the Appellant that in the event of the lien
    being vacated, the appellant would be continued in service and
    regularized in the said post. The only condition was that it will need
    the approval of the Executive Council.
32. In Ram Pravesh Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others
    (2006) 8 SCC 381, this Court observed that the repository of the
    legitimate expectation is entitled to an explanation as to the cause
    for denial of the expected benefit flowing from the representation
    held out. Ram Pravesh Singh (supra) was recently followed by
    the Constitution Bench in Sivanandan C.T. and Others vs. High
    Court of Kerala and Others (2024) 3 SCC 799. Chief Justice D.Y.
    Chandrachud, speaking for the Constitution Bench, after felicitously
    tracing the entire history of the development of the doctrine of
    legitimate expectation, held in para 18 as under:-
           “18. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation
           in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and
           non-arbitrariness in Government dealings with individuals.
           It recognises that a public authority’s promise or past
866                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. The
          doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities,
          while performing their public duties, ought to honour their
          promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation
          can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established
          procedure.”
33. In the said judgment of the Constitution Bench, it was further held
    following Food Corporation of India vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle
    Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71 that public authorities have a duty
    to use their powers for the purpose of public good and that the said
    duty raises a legitimate expectation on the part of the citizens to be
    treated in a fair and non- arbitrary manner. One of the exceptions
    recognized in the above judgment is that the doctrine of legitimate
    expectation will cede to larger public interest.
34. In the present case, the only explanation given in the counter affidavit
    of the State was that the University had a discretion and that the
    denial of regularization and the decision to re-advertise was in the
    larger interest of the candidates who had not applied as the post
    was under lien. This explanation found favour with the High Court.
    However, we have in our discussion above, demonstrated that one
    of the post of the Assistant Professor (Law) was clearly a regular
    post in the Unreserved Category. We have found that no prejudice
    to public interest could have been caused as eligible candidates
    desiring the appointment would have anyway applied to compete
    for the regular slot. In view of this, in the facts of the present case,
    we find that the legitimate expectation was not outweighed by any
    overriding public interest.
35. The mandate of Ram Pravesh Singh (supra) as reiterated in
    Sivanandan C.T. (supra) that the appellant was entitled to an
    acceptable explanation for the denial of the expectation remains
    unfulfilled. This is an additional ground on which the appellant should
    succeed.
36. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the learned
    Single Judge dated 04.12.2019 and of the Division Bench
    dated 20.06.2022. We also set aside the Resolution in Agenda
    No.18/32/2018 of the 32nd Meeting of the Executive Council held on
    13.12.2018 insofar as it records that the Appellant is not confirmed
    in service and that the post should be readvertised. We also set
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                      867

           Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.


     aside the letter of the Registrar dated 06.02.2019 directing that her
     services will not be continued beyond 28.02.2019. We further issue
     a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-University to place
     the Appellant’s case for confirmation before the Executive Council
     and that the Executive Council and the Respondent-University shall
     pass appropriate resolution/order(s), in accordance with the findings
     given in the present judgment. The said exercise is to be carried
     out within four weeks’ time. The Appellant should also be given all
     consequential benefits.
37. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. There shall be no
    order as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan