Termination of Lecturer in Private College: Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Protection for Teachers

The case of Lal Bahadur Gautam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others revolves around the termination of a lecturer from a private unaided college affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. The Supreme Court examined whether the termination was in violation of Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, reinstating him and affirming the protection granted to teachers under statutory regulations.

The appellant, a lecturer at a private unaided college, was dismissed without obtaining the mandatory prior approval of the Vice-Chancellor. The High Court had dismissed his writ petition on the ground that private unaided colleges were not “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed this ruling, emphasizing that statutory obligations under the Act must be followed regardless of the institution’s funding status.

Background of the Case

The appellant was employed as a lecturer in a private unaided college affiliated with Chaudhary Charan Singh University (CCS University). His services were terminated on April 24, 2017, without prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor, as mandated under Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973.

The Vice-Chancellor had earlier set aside a previous termination order dated June 4, 2015, citing non-compliance with statutory requirements. However, the management conducted fresh departmental proceedings and issued another termination order in 2017, which was challenged by the appellant.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, represented by Advocate Shri Puneet Jain, argued:

• The termination order was in violation of Section 35(2) of the Act, which required prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor.
• The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition by holding that a private unaided college was not subject to judicial review under Article 12.
• The earlier order of the Vice-Chancellor, which nullified the first termination, was never challenged by the management and had attained finality.
• The fresh termination order was also in violation of the same statutory provision and was therefore unsustainable.
• The University regulations, particularly Rule No. 16.06, mandated procedural compliance, which the management had ignored.

Respondent’s Arguments

The college management, represented by its legal counsel, countered:

• The writ petition was not maintainable as private unaided colleges were not “State” under Article 12.
• The termination was based on valid departmental proceedings initiated against the appellant.
• The High Court had correctly dismissed the petition by applying the principles of master-servant relationships.
• The appellant was guilty of financial misappropriation, justifying his dismissal.
• The management was not a statutory body and, therefore, not bound by the procedural requirements applicable to government institutions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court critically analyzed the statutory framework governing private unaided colleges affiliated with public universities. The key legal observations were:

• Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act explicitly mandates prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor before dismissing or removing a teacher.
• Affiliated colleges, even if unaided, must adhere to the statutory provisions of the parent university.
• The management had accepted the Vice-Chancellor’s order setting aside the first termination and proceeded with fresh departmental action; it could not now argue that it was not bound by the statute.
• The High Court failed to consider the statutory implications of Section 35(2) and dismissed the petition on an incorrect constitutional premise.
• Reliance on previous judgments under repealed laws was erroneous and had misled the court.

Key Judicial Findings

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The termination order dated April 24, 2017, was invalid as it violated Section 35(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act.
• The appellant was entitled to reinstatement in service.
• The management’s failure to challenge the Vice-Chancellor’s earlier order precluded it from arguing procedural non-compliance.
• The issue of back wages would be subject to a fresh determination by the Vice-Chancellor.
• The management was free to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the law.

Conclusion and Impact

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the statutory protection granted to teachers in affiliated colleges. The judgment underscores that private unaided colleges cannot disregard university regulations while terminating faculty members.

The decision serves as an important precedent in employment disputes within educational institutions, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained irrespective of an institution’s funding model.

Petitioner Name: Lal Bahadur Gautam.
Respondent Name: State of Uttar Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 08-05-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Lal Bahadur Gautam vs State of Uttar Prade Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-05-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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