Supreme Court Reinstates Assistant Professor in Wrongful Termination Case

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling in Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi vs. Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University, has reinstated an assistant professor who was unlawfully terminated by the university. The Court found that the termination was unjustified and not in accordance with the university’s regulations and the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines. The ruling sets a precedent for employment rights in higher education institutions.

Background of the Case

Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University in 2004. His appointment was made under the UGC’s Tenth Five-Year Plan, and his employment was supported by UGC grants. Despite his appointment being categorized as under the Tenth Plan, the university continued to receive grants and had also requested the continuation of these posts under the Eleventh Plan.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-interest-demand-on-delayed-esi-contributions/

However, in 2007, the university issued a notice stating that Dr. Tripathi’s post had been abolished following the conclusion of the Tenth Plan, leading to his termination. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging his dismissal.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi)

Dr. Tripathi argued:

• His appointment was not contractual but permanent, as all teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan were made permanent by a university order dated March 27, 2010.
• The university continued to receive UGC funds for his post under the Eleventh Plan, contradicting their claim that the post had been abolished.
• The termination was an act of retaliation, as he had earlier objected to an illegal salary deduction of Rs. 5,000 per month, labeled as a ‘donation’ to the university.
• A UGC Expert Committee reviewed his case and concluded that his termination was ‘perverse and incorrect.’

Arguments by the Respondents (Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University & UGC)

The university contended that:

• Dr. Tripathi’s appointment was under the Tenth Plan and was always meant to be temporary, ending with the conclusion of the plan in March 2007.
• The university had the right to abolish posts based on funding availability and institutional needs.
• While UGC had continued to provide funds for certain posts, it did not explicitly mandate the retention of Dr. Tripathi’s position.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Tripathi and reinstated him as an Assistant Professor in the university. The Court made the following key observations:

• The appointment letter did not explicitly state that his employment was temporary or contractual.
• All other teachers appointed under the Tenth Plan had been made permanent; Dr. Tripathi was the only exception.
• Documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that the university had continued to seek funds for the Department of Political Science under the Eleventh Plan, contradicting their claim that the post was abolished.
• The UGC Expert Committee had thoroughly examined the matter and concluded that his termination was incorrect.
• “The termination of the services of the appellant was illegal and not in accordance with law,” the judgment stated.

Final Order and Compensation

The Supreme Court directed:

• Dr. Tripathi be reinstated as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science.
• He would be entitled to continuity of service only for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits.
• He would not receive back wages for the period from 2007 to reinstatement due to the principle of ‘no work, no pay.’
• If the Department of Political Science had been abolished, the university must absorb him in another suitable department.

Conclusion

This judgment upholds the rights of employees in the education sector and ensures that institutions cannot arbitrarily terminate faculty members without due process. It reinforces that UGC funding rules and university regulations must be followed transparently, and any wrongful termination can be challenged successfully before the courts.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-mandates-state-obligation-for-special-education-teachers-and-inclusive-learning-for-disabled-children/

Petitioner Name: Dr. Sushil Kumar Tripathi.
Respondent Name: Jagadguru Ram Bhadracharya Handicapped University & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 29-10-2021.

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

Download Judgment: dr.-sushil-kumar-tri-vs-jagadguru-ram-bhadra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-10-2021.pdf