Service Law – University-Second respondent passed resolution terminating College Development Council (CDC) – Challenged by the appellant-Director of CDC – High Court quashed the resolution directing that while the CDC will continue, it will be without the Appellant as its Director – Plea of appellant that the tenure limitation for two terms of three years can only apply to those Directors appointed on deputation – Held: Terms of the advertisement issued by the University calling for applications for the posts in the newly constituted CDC are material – Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for three years – Though the office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC does not mention a tenure, however, it cannot be said that the Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post of Director, CDC was for three years – Appointment was in terms of the advertisement – Further, Clause 3 of the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of College Development Council’ deals with the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC – Merely because in the said clause, the sentence providing for tenure limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, it cannot be said that the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists – Tenure limitation applies to every person who is appointed to the post – Having served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The terms of the advertisement issued by the University calling for applications for the posts in the newly constituted CDC are material. The Appellant was put to notice that his appointment was for a period of three years. Though the office order by which the Appellant was appointed as Director, CDC does not mention a tenure, it cannot be said that the Appellant was not put to notice that his appointment to the post of Director, CDC was for a period of three years. The appointment was in terms of the advertisement. [Para 9][1079-E-H]
1.2 The Clause 3 of the ‘Revised Guidelines for the Establishment of College Development Council’ deals with the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. When the clause is read as a whole, the word “he” is used to indicate the pay scale and the tenure of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. The sentence on deputationists is merely to provide that those persons on deputation will be eligible for deputation allowance and other permissible allowances. The clause read as a whole, deals with the conditions for the appointment of the Coordinator/Director/Dean of the CDC. Hence, it cannot be held that merely because the sentence providing for a tenure limitation follows the sentence on deputationists, the tenure limitation applies only to deputationists. The tenure limitation applies to every person who is appointed to the post. The Appellant has admittedly served out the tenure as Director, CDC of two terms of three years each. Having served the tenure laid down by the revised guidelines, the Appellant cannot continue as Director, CDC. [Paras 12, 13][1080-E-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.