A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the refusal of The Tripura University to confirm the appointment of Maitreyee Chakraborty as an Assistant Professor of Law, despite her satisfactory performance and the vacation of a lien that initially restricted her confirmation. The Executive Council of the University had decided to re-advertise the position, citing its discretionary authority and a purported “larger public interest.” The Supreme Court examined the principles of legitimate expectation, non-arbitrariness, and fair exercise of discretion, ultimately holding that the University’s actions were arbitrary and lacked justification. The Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts, directed the University to confirm the petitioner’s appointment, and awarded her consequential benefits.

Keywords:

Service Law; Lien Vacancy; Regularization; Arbitrary Power; Legitimate Expectation

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgement Cause Title: Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.
• ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9730 of 2024
• iii) Judgement Date: August 22, 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan
• vi) Author: Justice K.V. Viswanathan
• vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 854
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Constitution of India, Article 14 (Equality before law)
  • Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
  • Principles of Non-Arbitrariness in Administrative Decisions
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): None
• x) Case is Related to: Service Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case emerged from the non-confirmation of the petitioner’s appointment to a teaching position after the lien held by the prior occupant was vacated. Despite fulfilling all conditions stipulated in her appointment letter and rendering satisfactory service for over seven years, the University opted not to confirm her employment and instead decided to re-advertise the position. This decision was challenged in the High Court, which upheld the University’s discretion, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Initial Appointment: The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Assistant Professor (UR) in Law against a lien vacancy, pursuant to a competitive process. Her appointment letter indicated her continuation would be subject to the vacation of the lien and the approval of the Executive Council.

2. Lien Vacation: Dr. Praveen Kumar Mishra, who held the lien, resigned in 2017, leading to the vacancy becoming substantive.

3. Service Record: The petitioner served without any adverse remarks for over seven years.

4. University’s Decision: In December 2018, the Executive Council resolved not to confirm her appointment and opted to re-advertise the post, citing its discretion and purported public interest.

5. Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court, prompting the present appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• i) Was the decision of the University to re-advertise the position arbitrary and contrary to the doctrine of legitimate expectation?
• ii) Did the University have a valid reason to deny confirmation of the petitioner’s appointment?
• iii) Does the absence of adverse performance remarks bind the University to regularize the petitioner’s appointment?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The employment notification and her appointment letter explicitly provided for regularization upon lien vacation and satisfactory performance.
2. The petitioner underwent a rigorous selection process, rendering the argument about prejudiced applicants irrelevant.
3. There was no adverse performance review to justify the non-confirmation.
4. The University’s decision violated the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Reliance was placed on precedents, such as Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University (2021) 10 SCC 116, which held that appointments through a competitive process should not be arbitrarily terminated.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The University had discretion regarding appointments against lien vacancies, even if the lien was vacated.
2. Re-advertisement served a broader public interest by ensuring fairness to candidates who might not have applied earlier due to the lien condition.
3. The petitioner’s continuation was always subject to the Executive Council’s approval, which was not granted.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 14 of the Constitution: Mandates equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state actions.
2. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: Public authorities must honor reasonable expectations arising from their representations, unless overridden by public interest.
3. Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness: Administrative discretion must align with principles of justice and fairness.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI:

• The University’s discretion in lien appointments cannot override the petitioner’s legitimate expectation when all conditions for regularization were met.
• Absence of adverse remarks negates any justification for non-confirmation.
• The decision to re-advertise was arbitrary and unsupported by public interest considerations.

b. OBITER DICTA:

• Public authorities must exercise discretion judiciously and not capriciously.
• Procedural safeguards in public employment foster trust and fairness.

c. GUIDELINES:

1. Public bodies must explicitly record reasons for rejecting legitimate claims.
2. Advertisements for posts should transparently indicate the nature of vacancies.
3. Legitimate expectations derived from representations should not be disregarded without cogent justification.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the significance of fair administrative practices and the doctrine of legitimate expectation in service jurisprudence. It sets a precedent for curbing arbitrary decision-making in public employment.

K) REFERENCES

1. Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University (2021) 10 SCC 116
2. Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors., 2024 INSC 303
3. Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 381
4. Sivanandan C.T. & Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 799
5. Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71