Supreme Court Orders Reinstatement of Lecturer: Vijaya Bhiku Kadam vs. Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in favor of Vijaya Bhiku Kadam, a lecturer whose employment dispute with Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Shivaji University had persisted for nearly three decades. The judgment, delivered by Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, directed the reinstatement of the appellant as a full-time lecturer in English while ensuring that the existing employment of the contesting respondent remained unaffected.

This case revolves around the principles of service law, particularly concerning faculty appointments in educational institutions, adherence to merit-based selection, and the protection of individuals from procedural irregularities.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to 1992, when the appellant, Vijaya Bhiku Kadam, was appointed as a part-time lecturer in English at a college affiliated with Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Over the years, she faced multiple hurdles in securing a permanent position despite being selected for an open-category post. The issue escalated when another candidate, the fifth respondent, challenged the selection process, leading to a prolonged legal battle.

Chronology of Events

1992: Vijaya Bhiku Kadam, holding an M.A. and Ph.D. in English, was appointed as a part-time lecturer.
1993: The college advertised for full-time lecturer positions, one in the open category and the other in the Scheduled Caste category.
1993: The Selection Committee ranked the appellant third in merit; the first candidate did not join.
1993: The appellant was appointed to the open-category post after the first candidate declined.
1994: The university initially denied approval for her appointment due to the NET requirement but later accepted her Ph.D. as an exemption.
1995: The college conducted another selection process, in which the appellant was ranked first.
1996-1997: The fifth respondent continued to challenge the appointment process.
1998: The University and College Tribunal ruled in favor of the fifth respondent, reinstating her and displacing the appellant.
1999: The appellant was relegated to part-time status.
2014: The High Court remanded the matter for reconsideration.
2017: The High Court dismissed the appellant’s plea, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.
2023: The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, restoring her as a full-time lecturer.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Represented by Senior Counsel, the appellant contended:

She was appointed based on merit in the selection process.
Her position in the open-category post was legitimate and approved by the university.
The fifth respondent had accepted her appointment under the Scheduled Caste category and only later challenged the process.
The Tribunal and High Court orders failed to consider the procedural fairness of her appointment.
She had suffered an unjust demotion to part-time status despite being the rightful candidate for a full-time post.

Respondent’s Arguments

The contesting respondent and the college administration argued:

The fifth respondent was ranked higher in the original selection process and was entitled to the open-category post.
The appellant’s selection for the open-category post was irregular.
The reinstatement of the fifth respondent was legally sound, even if it disadvantaged the appellant.
Financial constraints prevented the institution from maintaining additional full-time positions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the appellant had been subjected to procedural unfairness and undue hardship over the years. The Court noted:

“The appellant continues to work as a lecturer in English on a half-time basis. Therefore, for doing substantial justice, this is a fit case where we should invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for continuing her appointment on a full-time basis.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/illegal-teacher-appointment-supreme-court-dismisses-salary-claim-in-assam-education-case/

1. Legitimacy of Appointment

The Court affirmed that the appellant was properly appointed against the open-category post:

“Even assuming that there was an error committed by the College Management by appointing the appellant against the open category of post in the year 1994, the appellant cannot be allowed to suffer.”

2. Delay in Legal Challenge

The Court noted that the fifth respondent had accepted her appointment under the reserved category but later contested the selection:

“The fifth respondent applied pursuant to the third and fourth advertisements without making any grievances about the outcome of the process conducted under the second advertisement.”

3. Misuse of Procedural Loopholes

The judgment criticized the prolonged litigation that forced the appellant into part-time service:

“In this process, the appellant has become age-barred to get the appointment to the post of lecturer elsewhere.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

The appellant shall be reinstated as a full-time lecturer with effect from January 5, 1995.
She will not be entitled to back wages but will get service benefits.
Her seniority shall be maintained below the fifth respondent.
The State Government shall release necessary grant-in-aid for her salary.
This ruling is made under Article 142 and shall not serve as a precedent.

This judgment highlights the importance of judicial intervention in correcting procedural injustices in employment disputes while balancing institutional requirements and financial constraints.

Petitioner Name: Vijaya Bhiku Kadam.
Respondent Name: Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: vijaya-bhiku-kadam-vs-mayani-bhag-shikshan-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-28-08-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category