THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER, ETC.versusDR. ANURIKA VAISH AND OTHERS, ETC.

                          [2017] 3 S.C.R. 691



THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,                             A
 DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER, ETC.
                                   v.
           DR. ANURIKA YAISH AND OTHERS, ETC.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 4406-4418of2017)                         B
                          MARCH 24, 2017
        [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
        Service Law - Appointment - Cancellation by Board of
Management - Termination of teachers - Writ petition before High
Court - On 11. 12.20I 5, High Court set aside the order of
                                                                            c
termination leaving it open to the Board to take fresh decision after
affording opportunity to the writ petitioners - Appellant-Institute
again unilaterally took certain decisions and issued SCN to the
teachers as to why their appointment should not be cancelled -
Some teachers challenged the SCNs and the High Court stayed those           D
SCNs - At this stage, appellant challenged the judgment dated
11. I 2.20I 5 and interim orders - Held: The decision to cancel the
appointments was based on a status report which was not furnished
to the affected teachers - High Court, therefore, rightly found that
the decision taken by the appellant-Institute was in violation of the
                                                                            E
principles of natural justice - Matter remitted to Institute for decision
afresh in accordance with law - Directions passed. ,. ·
      Disposing of the appeals and contempt petitions, the Court
      HELD: 1. The whole ill-advised exercise undertaken by
the appellant-Institute only led to unnecessary litigation. In the          F
judgment dated 11.12.2015, the High Court had set aside
Resolution at Item No.16 of the Eighth Board Meeting. The
decision to cancel the appointments was based on a Status Report
which was not furnished to the affected teachers. The High Court,
therefore, found that the decision taken by the appellant-Institute
was in violation of the principles of natural justice. And thereafter,
the High Conrt 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. The appellants
ought to have made available a copy of the Status Report discussed
in the Eighth Board Meeting which led to cancellation of their              H
                                  691
     692           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017) 3 S.C.R.


     A     appointments and should have afforded an opportunity of making
           a representation and hearing. The appellant-Institute rather took
           several other steps. [Paras 6, 7)(695-H; 696-A-C]
                  2. The matter is remitted to the Institute with a direction
           to start the process from the stage of the judgment of the High
     B     Court dated 11.12.2015. 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
     c     Report and on the reasons for termination as referred to in the
           Eighth Board Meeting. Thereafter, the Board shall take a fresh
           decision in the case of each individual in accordance with law.
           The only notice which the teachers could have been issued is on
           the basis of the consideration in the Eighth Board Meeting and
     D     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.
           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
     E     and are set aside. 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
           deemed to be in service under law until a fresh decision is taken
           as per the judgment. In case any of the teachers has been working
      F    elsewhere or has been working in a different ca11acity in the
           Institute, such teachers shall not be entitled to the benefit of the
           above declaration. Their fate will be dependent on the fresh
            decision, which is to be taken by the appellant. 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
     G      teachers. [Para 8](696-D, E-H; 697-A-B, E-F)
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4406-
           4418 of2017.
                From the Judgment and Order dated Arising out of impugned final
     H     judgment and order dated 11/12/2015 in Writ-A Nos. 22558, 21309, 21920,
   IIIT, DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD v. DR. ANURlKA                              .693
                        YAISH

21319, 21595, 37213 & 36461 of 2014, 16/03/2016 in Contempt                    A
Application (Civil) Nos. 645 & 1033 of2016, 04/04/2016 in Writ-A No.
14486, 14488, 14490 of2016 and 13/04/2016 in Writ-A No. 16715 of
2016 ofthe High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
                                     WITH
      C. A. Nos. 4419-4420 of2017.                                             B

    Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv., Sanyat Lodha, T. Mahi pal, Pulk it Tare, Mohit
Kumar Shah, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
     Rakesh Dwivedi, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Devvrat, Ms. Akanksha Gaur,
Mehul M. Gupta, Anil Kaushik, Manoj R. Sinha, R. P. Gupta, T. N.               C .
Razdan, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Dr. Kailash Chand, Advs. for the
Respondents.
      Dr. Ashutosh Kr. Singh, Respondent-in-person.
      The Judgment of the Cout1 was delivered by
                                                                               D
      KURIAN, J. 1. 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
                                                                               E
selection was held on 06.04.2013 and the incumbents were appointed
accordingly. The Board, in its Eighth Meeting, as Item No.16, took a
decision to cancel the appointments. The relevant consideration reads
as follows:
        "ITEM N0.16
                                                                               F
        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. I of this meeting, it was    G
        apprised by some Board members that the advertisement brought
        outby IIITA for these se.Jections 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
                                                                               H
694           'SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A            F.No.3.11014/ll/Q4-CDN dated 191h July, 2004, MHRD had
             advised heads of all autonomous Bodies prohibiting all the retiring
             Directors, for any action to make selections I promotions two -
             three·· months before the expiry of their term or retirement, as
             the case may be. Further, the erstwhile director's tenn expired
             on 26•h December, 2012 and he was on six months extension in
B
             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 I appointment
             and other recommendations mentioned by the selection committee
c            therein, was wrong ab initio.
             Accordingly, the BoM in this Meeting recommended, in
             supersession to the earlier decisions of the Board in this matter,
             that all selections I appointments done on April 61\ 2013 are
             CANCELLED ...."                                     .
D
             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-
E     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
 F    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:
             "For all the aforesaid reasons recorded hereinabove the entire
             decision making process is clearly vitiated and the unclarity on
G
             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
H            of the impugned resolution of the 8tl1 Board Meeting cannot be
    lIIT, DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD v. DR. ANURIKA                              695
                    YAISH [KURIAN, J.]

        sustained and the same are hereby quashed. The writ petitions          A
        are accordingly allowed and the impugned cancellation orders in
        these petitions as well as the l 6'h Resolution of the 8'h Board
        Meeting are hereby quashed. The resolutions passed in the 7'h
        Board Meeting and 81h Board Meeting only in so far as they are
        adverse to the petitioners shall be open to consideration in the
                                                                                B
        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
                                                                                c
directions in the judgment dated 11.12.2015 agai1i unilaterally took certain
decisions in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Meetings of the Board and
subsequently issued show-cause notices to the teachers as to why their
appointment should not be cancelled.
                                                                                D
        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          E
 by the High Court ofJudicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 22558 of
 2014, 21309 of2014, 21319 of2014, 21595of2014, 37213 of2014 a11d
 36461 of2014; and against the Interim Order dated 16.03.2016 passed
·by the High Court of Judicature at A Ilahabad in Contempt Application
 (Civil) No. 645 of2016 and 1033of2016; and against the Interim Order
                                                                                F
,dated 04.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 in Writ-A No. 14486 of2016, 14488 of2Ql6 and 14490 of2016; and
 against the Interim Order dated 13.04.2016 passed ~ythe High Court of
 Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 16715 of2016.
         6. Having extensively heard Shri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior
 Counsel for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi and Shri V. Giri,            G
 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 iH-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·    H
696             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017] 3 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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 thatthe appellants should have gone is to make available a
     copy of the Status Report discussed in the Eighth Board Meeting which
     led to cancellation of their appointments and afford an opportunity of
c 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
D     direction to start the process from the stage of the judgment of the High
      Court dated I 1.12.2015, 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 ofthe Status
E                  Report discussed in the Eighth Board Meeting to the
                   affected teachers forthwith and also provide a further peri9d
                   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
F                  the Status Report and on the reasons for termination as
                   referred to in the Eighth Board Meeting. Thereafter, the
                   Board shall 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
G                  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 d1e
                   affected teachers.
              B.    The decisions in the Fourteenth and Fiffeenth Board
H                   Meetings, as far as the further course of action for
   IIIT, DEOGHAT JHALWA ALLAHABAD v. DR. ANURIKA                                  697
                   YAISH [KURIAN, J.]

                implementation of the judgment dated 11.12.201.5 is               A
                concerned, a~e 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 untila fresh decision is        B
                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
                of2016, which reads as follows:
           "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           D
           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
                                                                                   E
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               F
                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
                petitions and writ petitions are struck off from the file of       G
                the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
       9. There shall be no order as to costs.


Devika Gujral                                              Appeals disposed of.